Its obvious that Obama and Holder want these terrorists to get off on a technicality and go scot free. You wait and see. It will happen. This is the most idiotic and radical administration in history.

1993 WTC , convicted.

Mickey , pulling for the terrorists.

Let us agree to disagree. I believe that Sherman was on the moral high ground with the concept of total war.

You see, he believed that the gentry, attending their dixie-singing gala soirees, seated with the ladies in their mansion parlors, and for whose fortunes the war was to save, should not enjoy exemption from the brutal warfare they sent their lesser surrogates into glorious combat to win the day for them. (sorry for the run on sentance)

No, I believe that war is not a game but the most serious enterprise one can engage in. The best wars are the most savage and therefore most mercifully SHORT.

I’m not sure that the infantryman enjoys much benefit from rule book approved and legally fired 30 caliber round that turns his brains to jelly.

But we can disagree, perhaps the gentry should not suffer the indignities of combat; someone has to preserve our civilities don’t they?

BTW we have never won any war since we began using rule books. I will grant you that they did exist during WW-II; but the generals had more sense than to read them.

“How many other divisions among conservatives do you identify?”

Balkanization, a favorite tactic of the left. As you and I have pointed out before, r108. That is why I don’t buy his protestation of being a “hard conservative”.

He does not have a clue!

The ends justify the means? Anybody believes that has no business being involved in the decision to go to war

.

First of all, Yes, there are times when the end most certainly justifies the means. And survival, either as individuals or as a nation/society, not only warrants, but demands just such an approach.

But of course, you are cavalierly throwing a blanket generalization into a far more specific conversation and trying to hold me to account for your bald attempt at being clever. That simply will not do.

You also have ignored, conveniently, the flip side of that same coin, for there are clearly times, and circumstances, and persons and ideals for which those of us who have fought in the military would willingly surrender our lives. This is particularly true in our post-Selective Service, all volunteer military where the possibility of such a sacrifice is implicit in joining up.

There is, finally, the question of outcomes. Hitler is killing no more Jews, Saddam Hussein is poisoning no more villages of Kurds, Colonel Ghaddafi is not bombing anymore German discos that cater to American GIs… all good results, I think.

Con’s are just playing word games, and semantics.

So say’s the man that thinks that service members are not American people.

Saying that is treasonous and confirming terrorist knowledge.

the former U. S. Attorney who won that conviction has publicly stated that the prosecution revealed intelligence to the terrorists

Ambivalence. That is the lie you try to justify your submission to terrorism with. F&ck you.

lock’em’up

Your sarcasm is rather foolish. The whole reason Republicans question Eric Holder is because he has taken a huge risk without weighing out all the consequences. That, unfortunately, is a pattern with this administration as a whole. You have a right to cling on to the Obama administration and hope for the best but that doesn’t make their record of performance any more palatable. At some point in your life you need to start thinking for yourself, or you can continue being a tool. But there is one basic truth you need to know. Politicians are not the smartest people in society. They are NOT our best representation. That is a truism on BOTH sides of the isle. This administration as a whole has way too many dummys in position of power. More, unfortunately, than in the last couple decades.

The guy who bombed the USS Cole was tried in Federal Court. He did not commit a crime on the American people. Where was the outrage then?

Separating citizens into pigeonholed categories is the tactic of the left, not of Americans.

I’m a little confused as to the proposed “rights” of any combatents.

Certainly president Obama does not think certain “suspects” living in certain countries we are at peace with (Pakistan et al) have any “right” to to life, let alone to be mirandized, given the opportunity demand habeas corpus or plead the 5th. He (Obama) has ordered the summary execution by vaporization of “suspects” via hellfire missiles along with their wives and children and has done so routinely since he took office – where were the “trials”???
If there were not any thne isn’t Obama war criminal by your standards? If not why not?

Regarding the Geneva Conventions, which I call a rule book for war; I do not respect them.
In my opinion, in order to make war more feasible as an instrument of diplomacy, certain members of the gentry signed this agreement of rules for warfare – wars in which they certainly never had their own asses hung on the firing line. I’m not comfortable with that. If someone is trying to kill me and claims I must follow a rule book that allows his side to turn my brains to jelly, then I dont really respect those rules. I would make my own rules and use any means to prevent this from happening to me, including torturing anyone who has potential knowledge of the whereabouts of people actively trying to whack me in order to get their next promotion.

If this bothers you too damn bad.

With respect to this stupid rule book (Geneva Conventions). The rule book states that KSM isn’t covered by the rule book. Therefore, the military forces that captured him have the right to summarily execute him (according to the rule book). They should have done so the moment he ceased to have any intelligence value to us.

I fault both Bush and Obama immensely for not doing this.

What is the upside to this?
We show the world that we can try and convict them as criminals?
Again, what if they get off on a technicality?

Holder and Obama have already stated that they will not go free – so what ‘justice’ is there if you try someone but no matter the outcome they will still be incarcerated?

What do you show the world then when the Holder and Obama are telling the world, before the trial even happens, that they will be found guilty and no matter what, they will not be going free?

This is nothing more than a dog and pony show to throw a bone to the left from the Obama administration to try and embarrass the previous administration and the CIA.

Tonyo? That is the primary point that will be used to toss the whole thing out. The venue change and wailing about not being able to get an unbiased jury will just be icing over top.

I do not know the circumstances of KSMs capture, its not that important. He was not a uniformed solider under order of any a formal command structure and therefore none of the Geneva conventions of which we were a signatory applied to him.

I believe that it was highly moral to torture this man using any effective means for the purpose of gaining intelligence. If it was simply for sadistic pleasure then it would be wrong.

The best historical example that we have is that of the tribunal initiated by FDR in 1942 when four Germans (later joined by others) were captured in civillain clothing after being clandestinely disgorged by a German U-Boat off Long Island. They were not bound over as POWs; they were instead interogated (and almost certainly tortured) then they were executed.

The reason they were executed is that they had intended to blow up our buildings while using the deception of civillian clothing – this afforderd them NO legal protection under Geneva.

You can read about it here:

http://www.spectacle.org/yearzero/tribunal.html

There were the methods by which we won our last successful war (WWII)

Im not a big fan of euphamisms. Water boarding is a form of torure. I endorse torture in support of usable military intelligence. War is not a game with rules, and I do not wish to support any war-game with rules in which I may be killed within the confines of its rule book.

I hope this clarifies my position for you

Spin&twirl, methhead, spin&twirl. You said, and it is what you meant.

I consider there to be two divisions: true conservatives and false conservatives. True conservatives adhere to the principles of the declaration and of the constitution while false conserative are “compassionate” or some other nonsense. Compassion is a great personel virtue that has no place in constitutional government.

I agree with your last point.

We took the wrong fork at the Nuremberg trials by dressing up the execution of leaders of an enemy force as “criminals” Granted they were scum-balls, but if that were the only case for their execution we would have to execute most of our politicians under the same rubric

Where are all the postings from Dino, RBB and Hannity. I would really like to see what they have to say. I could use a good laugh. They must not have received the talking points on how to combat these concerns. No Miranda, Coersed confession – KSM will probably get Holders old law firm to sue the USG for violating his civil rights and false imprisonment. This will be a show trial so Obama can distract and deflect attention from all his current failures in progress. He will be able to talk tough and blame Bush some more. Like “Rev”. Wright preached – Americans chickens came home to roost, God D@^n America – this would be vindication for your old buddy – Huh, Barry. It will allow him more time to dither on issues of (Life & Death) National Security. I just wish he would give the media some rest – Has ANY president ever spent so much time on camera? The guys that feed the teleprompter must be worn to a frazzle.

Bat says:

First, as JFH points out, there was plenty of outrage, from the very same people who have pointed out the dangers that Holder’s decision entails. And of course attacking a US Navy ship and killing US Navy personnel isn’t really a “crime” in the conventional sense of the word… it is clearly an act of war, undercutting the argument for using civilian courts in the first place.

If you admit a terrorist who bombed military members was once before tried in civilian courts than Lindsey Graham was wrong.

Guilty as charged; I am not a “party man” I consider my loyal only to the principles of the Declaration and to the Constitution – I am a true believer and that is why I cannot stomach either party. Put me in George Washington’s camp in this respect.

OK, so members of the US Navy are not “American people”? Really, methhead?

the guy behind grahamnisty keeps laughing… holder is pownt.

RE: “There are rules of war and there are things we should not do. If Hitler decided that killing all the Jews helped him win the war than you just justified the Holocaust.”

Rubbish: You appear to know little of history, Hitlers primary mission was to kill all the Jews and war was an excuse to do it. If losing the war was the price to be paid for eradicating the Jews it was a price Hitler was willing to pay.

Then I would suggest you quit voting Democrat, and stop supporting the Party that is working to drag America down, pal.

While you (not you sir gareth) will have our soldiers looking at rules and regulations before they fire their weapon, I can tell you this, the enemy has no such compunction on shooting.

The real enemy to the soldier on the battlefield is the politicians and lawyers. At least on the battlefield, a soldier knows who the enemy is.

Its idiotic, even those of us on the Right will tell you right off the bat. If he is being tried in a civilian court, and if he was not mirandized. He gets off

How hard is that to understand? He is free to go because he was read his rights. It happens all the time. You cannot make a special exemption to the law for him, therefor, the only reason to hold this trial is to embarass the Bush Admin and put America itself on trial for the rest of the world.

Our only hope is that he pleads Guilty and ends the whole thing before it starts.

If I were his lawyer I would subpoena ALL documents, videos, and electronic communications in which his name is mentioned by any US agency.

I would move for supression of ALL evidence gained after he was apprehended based on anything he told them.

I would move for a change of Venue, only accepting the change when a “impartial” judge and jury could be found. (HA!)

There are so many other holes that you could drive every truck in NY through them.

The guy who bombed the USS Cole was tried in Federal Court. He did not commit a crime on the American people. Where was the outrage then?

This is an inordinately stupid attempt at an argument.

First, as JFH points out, there was plenty of outrage, from the very same people who have pointed out the dangers that Holder’s decision entails. And of course attacking a US Navy ship and killing US Navy personnel isn’t really a “crime” in the conventional sense of the word… it is clearly an act of war, undercutting the argument for using civilian courts in the first place.

More importantly, the decision to try one of the USS Cole terrorist bombers in civilian court points up the inanity of the argument made by Holder and Obama about trying some terrorists in civilian courts and others in military tribunals… tribunals endorsed by and voted for by then Boy senator Obama.

The fact is, neither the president nor his attorney general have made a cogent, rational argument explaining this decision, and their supporters are obviously every bit as clueless.

There is no legal precedent for what Holder and Obama have decided to do here, and except for diverting the public’s attention away from Obama’s callous mismanagement of the economy, no rational reason for this decision.

What’s your definition of a “hard conservative”?

Get a grip – everyone that has stated they want something to fail is the socialization of america by this administration – they want the socialist policies to fail, not america.

Oh gosh! Keep your fingers crossed, maybe it’ll be another “fail” for America!

OK all you republicans! Gimme an F, Gimme a A, Gimme an I, Gimme an L, What’s that spell? Fail America Fail!

I wonder where in NYC AG Holder thinks he is going to find an “untainted” “unbiased” jury of the accused, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s peers?

Of course this trial is going to be a circus. And just like the circuses of ancient Roman times, the intent is undoubtedly to distract the public from its government’s ineptitude and the lousy economy.

the reasons Obalam wants this trial in NY are truly obscure and truly bizarre….it’s a huge risk with almost no upside among the voters even if all goes 100% for the prosecution

the downside is amazingly deep…..use you own imaginations.

could it be the ignorant, goofy WE ARE THE ONES WE’VE BEEN WAITING FOR self hypnosis chants ringing in Team Obama’s ears have finally made them lose all touch with reality?

No, terrorists are Brigands/Bandits and the only “right” they have is to a swift execution upon the feild they are taken.

Next false argument from you, whiny lying c&nt, in 3, 2, 1,,,,,,,,

I wonder how much evidence was gathered without proper search warrants?

In 1993, the US president knew as much about Islamist Jihad as he knew about Mandarin Chinese declensions.

By comparison, in 2009 both the current president and his predecessor have publicly stated that the US is “at war” with al Qaeda. To bestow on KSM and any of his illegal combatant terrorist cohorts the legal rights of an American citizen accused of shoplifting is unconscionably stupid. Especially for someone purported to be the nation’s chief law enforcement officer.

Holder, like his boss, is in way, way over his head.

No, Adolf Hitler explained, in detail, that killing Jews was his religious duty. Nothing to do with war, you lying c%cksucker.

How many other divisions among conservatives do you identify? Do you consider that useful in advancing the cause of conservatism to create such divisions?

My commitment to the Constitution and the four freedoms isn’t emotionally-based, so I’m not “horrified” when either GW or McCain called themselves “conservatives”; I just know they aren’t conservatives.
In a like manner, lefties are wrong when they call themselves either “progressive” or “liberal”, because they are neither. They are totalitarian fascists.
In the same vein, our economic system is rightly called “the free enterprise system”, not “capitalism”.

It’s beyond obvious that holding a civilian trial for war criminals/terrorists is a political stunt, cooked up by this administration to distract from the insanity of Obama’s economic and foreign policies.

I would Identify a hard conservative as one who be be horrified at the fact that George Bush applied the same appelation to himself.

The essential point of my argument is this: the law cannot give these people a fair trial and so the only proper conclusion to a criminal trial would be to exonerate them. To do otherwise does severe damage to the law.

The proper handling of their situation should result in their extra-legal execution with no fanfare. The DOD would announce the execution a year later by some routine end of year report.

There is no precedent for illegal combatants to be tried in American civilian courts. And the US Attorney General, the Obama administration’s top lawyer (presumably) was so ignorant that he had to be told this by a nominally Republican Senator?????

This is not going to end well at all. One more example of gross Obama administration ineptitude.

Sir Gareth,

Your points are all well taken. And if they are not issues for serious consideration by our apparently not-so-serious attorney general, they will most certainly be issues for consideration by an appellate judge years after the trial. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to be with us for a long, long time.

Its interesting to go back through this thread and the others dealing with the Obama/Holder decision to try KSM in a civilian court.

The overwhelming amount of commentary, and by far the most thoughtful and reasonable comments, are from those of us who object to the decision. Uusually on legal, or national security grounds.

But those few comments from those on the Left offer nothing in actual support of the Obama/Holder decision… no cogent legal or military/intelligence rebuttals of our arguments. Only attacks on those of us who call into question the dubious wisdom of Obama and Holder.

In other words, those on the Left can’t offer a cogent, rational defense of this decision. They can only attack those of us who disagree.

Absolutely correct. That this point has to be made over and over – and it is still not fully understood by the Left – says all you need to know about the never ending void that is modern liberalism.

I was about to bring up the ’93 trial as an example of the failures involved. Long, costly media circus that handed an intelligence bonanza to Al Qaeda. The required prosecution disclosure of methods and people set back the anti -terrorism program horribly.