President and AG's mindless meaningless stupid decision to try al queda shit here

[jillian]

If they go through with this it will be the final nail in the liberal democrat congress coming to you in 2010.!!!

i think you might want to rethink that... you didn't vote dem. you'd never vote dem. you'd die before you'd vote dem.

for the people who DO vote dem, this isn't going to do a damn thing...

and if they convict, you guys are going to look like morons.

 

[bodecea]

What I don't understand is why are we going to abandon that courthouse we spent millions on to construct there are GITMO so they would have everything they needed to conduct the trials there and bring them to the States for the trials? Just another fine example of our elected officials, and those appointed and not elected, doing dumb shit stuff.

What do you need to conduct a trial?

A few chairs, tables, podium, and a gavel?

And a Lynching tree...don't forget that.

 

[bodecea]

If they go through with this it will be the final nail in the liberal democrat congress coming to you in 2010.!!!

And if they are found guilty? Do you still think that it will be a final nail? Or a sense of satisfaction that our government is back on track?

 

[PoliticalChic]

If they go through with this it will be the final nail in the liberal democrat congress coming to you in 2010.!!!

i think you might want to rethink that... you didn't vote dem. you'd never vote dem. you'd die before you'd vote dem.

for the people who DO vote dem, this isn't going to do a damn thing...

and if they convict, you guys are going to look like morons.

Speaking of morons, perhaps you can help me to conflate these two aspects involving the use of the judicial system:

1. "At a press conference today, Attorney General Eric Holder said, "I would not have authorized the bringing of these prosecutions unless I thought that the outcome -- in the outcome we would ultimately be successful."
What will happen at KSM's trial? | FP Passport

Have there been any terrorists that the federal government tried to prosecute, but botched?

2. William Ayers, after he was released as a terrorist after government screw ups. "Guilty as hell, free as a bird—it’s a great country."

 

[concept]

What I don't understand is why are we going to abandon that courthouse we spent millions on to construct there are GITMO so they would have everything they needed to conduct the trials there and bring them to the States for the trials? Just another fine example of our elected officials, and those appointed and not elected, doing dumb shit stuff.

What do you need to conduct a trial?

A few chairs, tables, podium, and a gavel?

And a Lynching tree...don't forget that.

Yeah lets not forget that dear leader has already said that KSm will be tried, convicted and executed.

So much for that whole moronic leftist talking point about this being about a fair trial.



The only thing on trial here is going to bush policy.

 

[Navy1960]

This nation has a tradition of military tribunals and frankly , I do not see what the issue is with them when it comes to people captured on the battlefield or handed over to US Military forces. Want some examples.

A civil court of the United States is created by a law of Congress, under and according to the Constitution. To the Constitution and the law we must look to ascertain how the court is constituted, the limits of its jurisdiction, and what its mode of procedure. A military tribunal exists under and according to the Constitution in time of war. Congress may prescribe how all such tribunals are to be constituted, what shall be their jurisdiction, and mode of procedure. Should Congress fail to create such tribunals, then, under the Constitution, they must be constituted according to the laws and usages of civilized warfare. They may take cognizance of such offenses as the laws of war permit; they must proceed according to the customary usages of such tribunals in time of war, and inflict such punishments as are sanctioned by the practice of civilized nations in time of war. In time of peace, neither Congress nor the military can create any military tribunals, except such as are made in pursuance of that clause of the Constitution which gives to Congress the power "to make rules for the government of the land and naval forces." I do not think that Congress can, in time of war or peace, under this clause of the Constitution, create military tribunals for the adjudication of offenses committed by persons not engaged in, or belonging to, such forces. This is a proposition too plain for argument. But it does not follow that because such military tribunals can not be created by Congress under this clause, that they can not be created at all. Is there no other power conferred by the Constitution upon Congress or the military, under which such tribunals may be created in time of war?

Presidential Order Establishing a Military Commission to Try the Lincoln Assassination Conspirators and Opinion of the Attorney General Concerning such Order

In case your wondering those invloved in the conspiracy to assassinate President Lincoln were tried before a Military Tribunal and then executed.

On July 2, 1942 the President and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, appointed a Military Commission and directed it to try the alleged spies. The President declared

all persons who are subjects, citizens, or residents of any nation at war with the United States or who give obedience to or act under the direction of any such nation, and who during time of war enter or attempt to enter the United States ... through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting or preparing to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile or warlike acts, or violations of the law of war, shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals.

shelter-island.org - German Spies

That was when Roosevelt ordered the trial of 8 German spies who were sentenced to death by a Military Tribunal. The point here is this, when Sen. Grahm asked the AG to name one instance in the history where an enemy captured on the battlefield in time of war was given a trial in civil criminal court , he failed to name one. Prior to that questioning the AG has on several occasions said that this nation is at war. Let's all just call this what it is, and by the nature of of the some of the questions that was obvious. This had less to do with traditions or law for that matter and more to do with some wanting the world to like us more. Ask youselves this, in 1993 we had a trial of the first WTC bomber and did it stop any terrorist organization from proceeding or make them like us more ?

 

[rdean]

I realize the topic has finally gotten some attention.

Even the goofy Lindsay Goober Graham (that fictional middle name courtesy of Mark Levin) seems to have finally caught on a little as evidencef by his grilling of our douchebag Attorney General today.

But what the fuck? Let US discuss it.

As Levin has phrased it, so shall I. Under WHAT law shall we "try" these al qaeda shitballs in a U.S. Court of Law?

If it is U.S. Constitutional Law, then these shitballs are as good as freed, for we DID detain the vermin for a long period of time with no access to lawyers. We QUESTIONED the fuckers without lawyers. We got statements from the pussys without the benefit of legal counsel. The fuckstains GOT no Miranda warnings. Their statements were elicited by what the left already calls "torture" (even though it isn't torture); it was certainly under duress. Those statements MUST, in the ordinary course of things, be precluded from use as evidence ath the trial of the shitfuckers.

But wait! There's more!

They have by God (allah akbar) rights to DISCOVERY. Some of the intel that led to their being caught is (almost certainly) going to be that "classified intel" which The New York Times loves to publish. So, their lawyers are absolutely going to make discovery demands for those documents. The dilemma is then readily exposed. Does the government give criminal defendants the documents as the LAW usually requires (thereby giving classified intel TO the VERY fuckwads we most want to keep it away from) -- OR -- to AVOID giving classified intel to the very shitsuckers we most urgently want to avoid giving it to, should the Government refuse to give criminal defendants required discovery CONTRARY to their by God (allah akbar) Constitutional rights? Deprive them of their due process rights and the case might well have to get dismissed.

And what happens then? If some Court orders KSM released (i.e., the case dismissed), does the Government comply? If not, what IS the basis for holding him? If so, are we actually maintaining that the Islamofilth who killed so many civilians by targetting them in blatantly illegal acts of war should be "let go?"

The fucking Attorney General sounded like a goddamned bubbling moron today. Kudos to Graham. But what the fuck was he thinking and why does our idiot President not just FIRE Attorney General Holder?

Does the idiot man-child President not have enough fucking sense to fire the disastrously and utterly incompetent Attorney General? Holder HAS TO GO!

There you go listing Republican failure one after the other. If Republicans would just trust the law of the country where they claim they are "patriots" then we wouldn't be in this mess.

Obama has to close Gitmo. Religious extremists use it as a recruitment tool. The president of North Korea said, "You can't chastice us, YOU torture".

Obama is just doing what Bush and the Republicans were supposed to do nearly a decade ago but obviously didn't have the sense to do.

In 94 Rudy said those terrorists got a taste of American Justice. Where are they now?

The terrorists that attacked the Cole will be tried by military tribunal, as well they should be.

By the way, the Conservative Supreme Court probably agrees with Obama.

And look at the Republcians now. So scared. So terrified. Peeing their pants.

Don't worry, Democrats will protect you - like always. That's the Democrat lot in life. Clean up Republican messes and take care of them.

 

[WillowTree]

Ok. Not exactly a bump.

Consider this more of the addition of some detail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B5bkzypa6Y&feature=player_embedded

I am SHOCKED to have to give props to Lindsay Graham.

But, yet --

the guy sitting behind Graham was cracking the hell up cause he knew Graham was handing Holder his ass!

 

[Claudette]

He's not the only one who cracked up. I laughed my ass off. The look on Holders face was worth a thousand bucks.

What a marooooon.

 

[jillian]

Speaking of morons

And we didn't even have to call you by name and there you materialize. Thanks for that

 

[WillowTree]

I hope truly I do that the Republicans respect Mr. Holder.. truly I do,, just exactly like the democrats respected Mr. Gonzales! That's fair!

 

[Navy1960]

Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), USSC

the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.
EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)

Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld USSC
To the court, the more persuasive precedent was Ex parte Quirin, in which the court recognized its duty to enforce relevant Constitutional protections by convening a special Term and expediting review of a trial by military convention. The opinion explicitly stated that, because DTA did not bar it from considering the petition, it was unnecessary to decide whether laws unconditionally barring habeas corpus petitions would unconstitutionally violate the Suspension Clause.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In fact the U.S. Supreme Court has held that Military Tribunals especially in Quinn are very much within the scope of authority and use for enemy combatants. This is not a matter of Republican or Democrat it is a matter of the best place to bring these people to justice and this nation has a long tradition in such instances of Military Tribunals. regardless of what nations such as N. Korea may state, it is doubtful if these individuals had a trial in state court it would change that nations path anytime soon.

 

[jillian]

This nation has a tradition of military tribunals and frankly , I do not see what the issue is with them when it comes to people captured on the battlefield or handed over to US Military forces. Want some examples.

A civil court of the United States is created by a law of Congress, under and according to the Constitution. To the Constitution and the law we must look to ascertain how the court is constituted, the limits of its jurisdiction, and what its mode of procedure. A military tribunal exists under and according to the Constitution in time of war. Congress may prescribe how all such tribunals are to be constituted, what shall be their jurisdiction, and mode of procedure. Should Congress fail to create such tribunals, then, under the Constitution, they must be constituted according to the laws and usages of civilized warfare. They may take cognizance of such offenses as the laws of war permit; they must proceed according to the customary usages of such tribunals in time of war, and inflict such punishments as are sanctioned by the practice of civilized nations in time of war. In time of peace, neither Congress nor the military can create any military tribunals, except such as are made in pursuance of that clause of the Constitution which gives to Congress the power "to make rules for the government of the land and naval forces." I do not think that Congress can, in time of war or peace, under this clause of the Constitution, create military tribunals for the adjudication of offenses committed by persons not engaged in, or belonging to, such forces. This is a proposition too plain for argument. But it does not follow that because such military tribunals can not be created by Congress under this clause, that they can not be created at all. Is there no other power conferred by the Constitution upon Congress or the military, under which such tribunals may be created in time of war?

Presidential Order Establishing a Military Commission to Try the Lincoln Assassination Conspirators and Opinion of the Attorney General Concerning such Order

In case your wondering those invloved in the conspiracy to assassinate President Lincoln were tried before a Military Tribunal and then executed.

On July 2, 1942 the President and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, appointed a Military Commission and directed it to try the alleged spies. The President declared

all persons who are subjects, citizens, or residents of any nation at war with the United States or who give obedience to or act under the direction of any such nation, and who during time of war enter or attempt to enter the United States ... through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting or preparing to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile or warlike acts, or violations of the law of war, shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals.

shelter-island.org - German Spies

That was when Roosevelt ordered the trial of 8 German spies who were sentenced to death by a Military Tribunal. The point here is this, when Sen. Grahm asked the AG to name one instance in the history where an enemy captured on the battlefield in time of war was given a trial in civil criminal court , he failed to name one. Prior to that questioning the AG has on several occasions said that this nation is at war. Let's all just call this what it is, and by the nature of of the some of the questions that was obvious. This had less to do with traditions or law for that matter and more to do with some wanting the world to like us more. Ask youselves this, in 1993 we had a trial of the first WTC bomber and did it stop any terrorist organization from proceeding or make them like us more ?

Thanks for your perspective, Navy. The problem is that most of these people weren't taken from any battlefield. Or if they were, we certainly don't know it because there wasn't any transparency for six years on what was happening in Gitmo. My feeling is that if the last administration had any intention of trying anyone, they'd have done the military tribunals during those six years. They never had any intention of doing so, and only started demanding military tribunals when it became clear that the powers-that-be were going to change.

It's more that I have no problem with a trial. I think rules of evidence should apply. And I think the people who yelled that these people weren't entitled to Geneva Convention protections shouldn't now claim that they should have been treated like POW's.

 

[Navy1960]

This nation has a tradition of military tribunals and frankly , I do not see what the issue is with them when it comes to people captured on the battlefield or handed over to US Military forces. Want some examples.

A civil court of the United States is created by a law of Congress, under and according to the Constitution. To the Constitution and the law we must look to ascertain how the court is constituted, the limits of its jurisdiction, and what its mode of procedure. A military tribunal exists under and according to the Constitution in time of war. Congress may prescribe how all such tribunals are to be constituted, what shall be their jurisdiction, and mode of procedure. Should Congress fail to create such tribunals, then, under the Constitution, they must be constituted according to the laws and usages of civilized warfare. They may take cognizance of such offenses as the laws of war permit; they must proceed according to the customary usages of such tribunals in time of war, and inflict such punishments as are sanctioned by the practice of civilized nations in time of war. In time of peace, neither Congress nor the military can create any military tribunals, except such as are made in pursuance of that clause of the Constitution which gives to Congress the power "to make rules for the government of the land and naval forces." I do not think that Congress can, in time of war or peace, under this clause of the Constitution, create military tribunals for the adjudication of offenses committed by persons not engaged in, or belonging to, such forces. This is a proposition too plain for argument. But it does not follow that because such military tribunals can not be created by Congress under this clause, that they can not be created at all. Is there no other power conferred by the Constitution upon Congress or the military, under which such tribunals may be created in time of war?

Presidential Order Establishing a Military Commission to Try the Lincoln Assassination Conspirators and Opinion of the Attorney General Concerning such Order

In case your wondering those invloved in the conspiracy to assassinate President Lincoln were tried before a Military Tribunal and then executed.

On July 2, 1942 the President and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, appointed a Military Commission and directed it to try the alleged spies. The President declared

all persons who are subjects, citizens, or residents of any nation at war with the United States or who give obedience to or act under the direction of any such nation, and who during time of war enter or attempt to enter the United States ... through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting or preparing to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile or warlike acts, or violations of the law of war, shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals.

shelter-island.org - German Spies

That was when Roosevelt ordered the trial of 8 German spies who were sentenced to death by a Military Tribunal. The point here is this, when Sen. Grahm asked the AG to name one instance in the history where an enemy captured on the battlefield in time of war was given a trial in civil criminal court , he failed to name one. Prior to that questioning the AG has on several occasions said that this nation is at war. Let's all just call this what it is, and by the nature of of the some of the questions that was obvious. This had less to do with traditions or law for that matter and more to do with some wanting the world to like us more. Ask youselves this, in 1993 we had a trial of the first WTC bomber and did it stop any terrorist organization from proceeding or make them like us more ?

Thanks for your perspective, Navy. The problem is that most of these people weren't taken from any battlefield. Or if they were, we certainly don't know it because there wasn't any transparency for six years on what was happening in Gitmo. My feeling is that if the last administration had any intention of trying anyone, they'd have done the military tribunals during those six years. They never had any intention of doing so, and only started demanding military tribunals when it became clear that the powers-that-be were going to change.

It's more that I have no problem with a trial. I think rules of evidence should apply. And I think the people who yelled that these people weren't entitled to Geneva Convention protections shouldn't now claim that they should have been treated like POW's.

I agree jillian they should be given POW status under the Geneva convention and should have gotten that from day one. This issue had it been done correctly and in accordance with tradition would not be the mess that it is now had the Justice Department and the Administration decided to abandon that and were scolded by the USSC for it in 2006 and what surprises me is they continue to do it. So yes, Military Tribunals are the best place for these individuals and are consistant with law and tradition the last 9 years not with-standing.

1. ' First sentence. -- Investigations '

Under Article 82, paragraph 1 , judicial investigations relating to a prisoner of war must be conducted in accordance with the laws, regulations and orders in force in the armed forces of the Detaining Power; questioning, the hearing of witnesses, examination by experts, etc. must take place in accordance with those rules, and in this instance the Convention cannot in any way be substituted for the provisions of national legislation. The application of the principle of assimilation should ensure that prisoners of war receive humane treatment as required by the Convention. In order, however, to prevent certain instances of abuse such as occurred during the Second World War, the present provision enjoins the authorities concerned to conduct investigations "as rapidly as circumstances permit". The fact that prisoners of war are involved may well make certain procedures more difficult; it was nevertheless desirable to permit some flexibility, in order not to give any semblance of justification for hasty investigation.
The text adds "and so that his trial shall take place as soon as possible". At first sight, this recommendation may seem superfluous since the purpose of the investigations is to prepare the trial. The words clearly demonstrate the intention of the authors of the Convention to keep the period of investigation as short as possible and [p.478] to protect the prisoner of war during that time from any vexatious or other measures not directly intended to expedite the opening of the trial. In this connection, one should bear in mind the rule that the police authorities are not competent to conduct the investigations and there must be absolute separation between the police and the judicial authorities.
International Humanitarian Law - Third 1949 Geneva Convention

 

[PoliticalChic]

Speaking of morons

And we didn't even have to call you by name and there you materialize. Thanks for that

I didn't apply that term to you, although you clearly assumed it was directed so.

It is so true that we can only judge others by ourselves.

I suspect that anyone reading each of our posts will be able to assign the term appropriately.

But I was peripherally suggesting that you are less than articulate. And you have proven same.

Nor have you been able to respond to the query that I posed, with respect to us the two examples of the judicial process.

Perhaps you are not the legal expert that you pretend to be.

How efficient of you, to reveal so much is such a short post.

Bravo.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If they go through with this it will be the final nail in the liberal democrat congress coming to you in 2010.!!!

And if they are found guilty? Do you still think that it will be a final nail? Or a sense of satisfaction that our government is back on track?

Hate to bore, but recall the Obama response and the Nixon response:

"During a round of network television interviews conducted during Obama's visit to China, the president was asked about those who find it offensive that Mohammed will receive all the rights normally accorded to U.S. citizens when they are charged with a crime.
"I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him," Obama told NBC's Chuck Todd.
Compare that with the following report, from Time magazine's Aug. 17, 1970, issue:

It was in Denver's Federal Building that President Nixon committed the startling gaffe of prejudging the case of Charles Manson. While complaining that the press had made Manson a glamorous hero, Nixon said: "Here was a man who was guilty, directly or indirectly, of eight murders without reason." For a lawyer who occasionally delivers homilies on legal propriety, this was a serious breach.
Attorney General John Mitchell, who was standing at Nixon's side, instantly recognized Nixon's error. "This has got to be clarified," he told Presidential Aide John Ehrlichman immediately afterward. Unhappily, what ensued was a series of errors compounded by instant communications. Startled reporters dashed to the pressroom, and within minutes, the bulletins were moving across the land. The statement was filmed and broadcast later on network television, with a clarification appended.
But the damage was already done. It was not until half an hour after Nixon spoke that Press Secretary Ron Ziegler reappeared before the newsmen. After some minutes of verbal fencing, Ziegler agreed that Nixon's words about Manson should be retracted. When Ziegler told Nixon what had happened, the President was surprised: "I said 'charged,' " he replied. During the 3½-hour flight back to Washington, Mitchell persuaded Nixon to put out a statement backing Ziegler up. It read in part: "The last thing I would do is prejudice the legal rights of any person in any circumstances. I do not know and did not intend to speculate as to whether or not the Tate defendants are guilty, in fact, or not."
Obama issued a Nixonian "clarification," as the Politico report notes:

When Todd asked Obama if he was interfering in the trial process by declaring that Mohammed will be executed, Obama, a former constitutional law professor, insisted that he wasn't trying to dictate the result.
"What I said was, people will not be offended if that's the outcome. I'm not pre-judging, I'm not going to be in that courtroom, that's the job of prosecutors, the judge and the jury," Obama said. "What I'm absolutely clear about is that I have complete confidence in the American people and our legal traditions and the prosecutors, the tough prosecutors from New York who specialize in terrorism."
But Obama's statement is considerably worse than Nixon's. Whereas Nixon merely opined that Manson was guilty, Obama prejudged the outcome of the trial and sentencing. Manson and his co-defendants were tried in state court, a venue where the president has no authority. By contrast, the prosecutors who will handle cases of KSM et al. ultimately answer to Obama.

Worse still, Obama was defending his own politically charged decision to try the defendants as civilians by offering the reassurance that the outcome is preordained. The president's claim amounts to an assertion that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York is a kangaroo tribunal. If this is how the Obama administration views due process, heaven help any American who is charged with a federal crime."
The 'Diversity' Sham - WSJ.com

 

[saveliberty]

Not saying we should use this as a guide for normal cases But here goes:

.........................Military Tribunal............................... Criminal Trial
Cost..................Moderate to Low..............................High to Moderate
Verdict.............Guilty by admission.............................Open ended
Sentence...............Execution.............................................???
Safety to Public..........High.................................................???

 

[rdean]

Not saying we should use this as a guide for normal cases But here goes:

.........................Military Tribunal............................... Criminal Trial
Cost..................Moderate to Low..............................High to Moderate
Verdict.............Guilty by admission.............................Open ended
Sentence...............Execution.............................................???
Safety to Public..........High.................................................???

You forgot numbers. Since 9/11, I believe there have only been 3 convictions in Military tribunals. Am I right? Were any of them executed?

As far as "criminal trials", I believe there have been hundreds convicted and serving life terms. Of course, the only one executed I know about for sure was conservative Republicans Timothy McVeigh.

 

[saveliberty]

Not saying we should use this as a guide for normal cases But here goes:

.........................Military Tribunal............................... Criminal Trial
Cost..................Moderate to Low..............................High to Moderate
Verdict.............Guilty by admission.............................Open ended
Sentence...............Execution.............................................???
Safety to Public..........High.................................................???

You forgot numbers. Since 9/11, I believe there have only been 3 convictions in Military tribunals. Am I right? Were any of them executed?

As far as "criminal trials", I believe there have been hundreds convicted and serving life terms. Of course, the only one executed I know about for sure was conservative Republicans Timothy McVeigh.

Nice numbers... 3 for 3 = 100% convictions. Thanks for playing.

 

[blu]

Obama ceased the Military Tribunals by design to bring us what he has...and it's ALL political payback to his leftists base, placed upon the shoulders of Holder (Who HAS a stake in this by a Lawfirn he still belongs to)...

But the pertinent question remains? WHY did Obama stop an ongoing process? [Tribunals] PAYBACK to the Leftist base.

the ones bush sat on for 6 years so they didn't have to face all the legal challenges and put off yet another thing to fix when obama became president?

Lordy? ANOTHER IGNORANT SOUL...

Holder's Hidden Agenda, cont'd . . . [Andy McCarthy]

This summer, I theorized that Attorney General Eric Holder — and his boss — had a hidden agenda in ordering a re-investigation of the CIA for six-year-old alleged interrogation excesses that had already been scrutinized by non-partisan DOJ prosecutors who had found no basis for prosecution. The continuing investigations of Bush-era counterterrorism policies (i.e., the policies that kept us safe from more domestic terror attacks), coupled with the Holder Justice Department's obsession to disclose classified national-defense information from that period, enable Holder to give the hard Left the "reckoning" that he and Obama promised during the 2008 campaign. It would be too politically explosive for Obama/Holder to do the dirty work of charging Bush administration officials; but as new revelations from investigations and declassifications are churned out, Leftist lawyers use them to urge European and international tribunals to bring "torture" and "war crimes" indictments. Thus, administration cooperation gives Obama's base the reckoning it demands but Obama gets to deny responsibility for any actual prosecutions.
Today's announcement that KSM and other top al-Qaeda terrorists will be transferred to Manhattan federal court for civilian trials neatly fits this hidden agenda. Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials. They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witnesses — intelligence sources — must expose themselves and their secrets.


------------
EDUCATE YOURSELF...Will ya? Promise? And what I CITE above is from Any McCarthy whom prosecuted the "Blind Sheik" From the 1993 episode of TERRORISM under Bill Clinton...

SOURCE...

Dear lord? You gave them eyes but they cannot SEE...(Inasmuch as you gave them a fuckin BRAIN, and yet NO operating instructions)...

~The T