Will pending 9/11 trial prosecute Bush administration?

[QUENTIN]

Also, I'm still wondering what the Constitution Project has to do with that Accountability Commission link you tossed out?

What did that have to do with the price of tea in China? How does it discredit or even relate to what I cited?

 

[Annie]

Also, I'm still wondering what the Constitution Project has to do with that Accountability Commission link you tossed out?

What did that have to do with the price of tea in China? How does it discredit or even relate to what I cited?

What I wrote was that the Constitutional Project was a sponsor of the new Soros group:

Commission on Accountability

That Soros also funds The Constitution Project: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/usprograms/focus/security/focus_areas/nshrgrantees_20091001.pdf.pdf

Money, money everywhere.

Excuse me for having doubts about Soros wanting to do good in any shape or form for anyone but Soros. The American Spectator : Killing Capitalism Soros-Style

For this reason, I chose not to go to the link, originally. With your response, I did. I'm still waiting for your examples of terrorists found on battlefield and tried in US.

 

[WillowTree]

I hope for the families that jutice is served and this doesn't turn into a circus to score political points. But I have my doubts, and if these guys walk, I can't even fathom the division that will result in this country.

There is no reason, none, based on well-established precedent to think this has an even remote chance of happening.

Feel free to worry, but you're as well off saying "I can't even fathom the division that will result in this country if the sun doesn't come up tomorrow"

That sounds an awfully lot you have tried them and found them guilty as hell without a trial donut? OJ OJ OJ OJ technicalities, technicalities



I think you left wing lunatics better start you list of explanations as to why they got off scott free.

 

[Annie]

Here's a brief rundown on the Constitution Project: Constitution Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm seeing no link with this "Commission on Accountability" nor link to Soros. Lots of conservatives and republicans helping run it though, and it does say it's non-profit and bipartisan.

I'm just looking for the cases. Padillia was arrested in US, sent to Gitmo, ordered for trial in US. I'm looking for people that were caught on the battlefield, and brought to US to stand trial.

I can think of those with Ft. Dix, arrested in US, tried in US. The Y2K attempt, arrested in US or maybe CA, but chain of evidence in tact. The wannabees down in FL. The al Qaeda guys right after 9/11, one in Peoria, one in Macomb, both hiding out near universities. But from the battlefield? I can't think of one.

None were captured on the battlefield that I'm aware of. Many were arrested by foreigners and sent here, or arrested by our agents in foreign countries. Others arrested here by domestic police and security agencies. I'm not seeing the distinction without difference in how being captured on a nebulous "battlefield" (anywhere in a foreign country we are occupying) significantly changes things. What the 195 convictions demonstrate is that our court system is more than adept at trying AND CONVICTING terrorism suspects since 9/11. Well because of little things like rights being read. Evidence preserved and kept in chain of custody. I mean they didn't get Daniel Pearl's head from SMK

You really should research the cases because in many instances, the only evidence was that one person was acquainted with another, or visited websites, or pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda without ever actually taking part in any terrorist activities. Yet they were convicted to supermax prison for life. For those behind 9/11 like KSM, well-known long time figures of Al-Qaeda, the fact that a tortured confession is potentially inadmissible won't cause so much as a dent in the prosecution's case. There is so much else to tie him to terrorism and assure an easy conviction. And those are the ones who've been released under this or the previous administration. More than a few came back to attack our troops. Pentagon Releases List of Gitmo Detainees Who Returned to Terrorism - Political Punch

One thing a lot of folks here seem to be forgetting is that the DOJ is only trying these high profile suspects in US courts, they've got a multi-tiered system of justice now including military commissions and even preventitive detention without trial to assure no one gets off (even the genuinely innocent). Holder has asserted the right to detain suspects EVEN IF they are found not guilty in a criminal court or military commission. The only reason this lot is being tried in NYC is because they're high profile and the case is a slam dunk. If there were any doubt about that, they'd still be rotting in a cage.The above bolded is the reason that it's obviously politically motivated, they don't need this drama, they want a show trial, not about the terrorists, but red meat for the leftistas.

There is NO evidence or precedent to suggest they have any chance of getting off and a mountain that suggests otherwise. But even in the nigh impossible case that they're found not guilty, they'll still be held indefinitely. No one's walking free from this no matter what, that's been assured in advance which is why this is essentially a show trial.

Guantanamo - Salon.com (again, read the substance and the sources (mostly official and government), don't just poo-poo it off the bat because the writer works for a left-leaning site.

If you really think about the argument Obama made yesterday -- when he described the five categories of detainees and the procedures to which each will be subjected -- it becomes manifest just how profound a violation of Western conceptions of justice this is. What Obama is saying is this: we'll give real trials only to those detainees we know in advance we will convict. For those we don't think we can convict in a real court, we'll get convictions in the military commissions I'm creating. For those we can't convict even in my military commissions, we'll just imprison them anyway with no charges ("preventively detain" them).

The very fact that you are ok with a 'show trial.' That even if 'acquitted' you are all for holding them in custody, demonstrates how little you value the judicial system. I hope it's because you don't understand it.

 

[QUENTIN]

Also, I'm still wondering what the Constitution Project has to do with that Accountability Commission link you tossed out?

What did that have to do with the price of tea in China? How does it discredit or even relate to what I cited?

What I wrote was that the Constitutional Project was a sponsor of the new Soros group:

Commission on Accountability

That Soros also funds The Constitution Project: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/usprograms/focus/security/focus_areas/nshrgrantees_20091001.pdf.pdf

Money, money everywhere.

Excuse me for having doubts about Soros wanting to do good in any shape or form for anyone but Soros. The American Spectator : Killing Capitalism Soros-Style

For this reason, I chose not to go to the link, originally. With your response, I did. I'm still waiting for your examples of terrorists found on battlefield and tried in US.

You're familiar with what bipartisan means, right? In order to be bipartisan, a group must not exclude liberals. In fact, the opposite. If it's bipartisan, it includes support from liberals and convervatives, as the Constitution Project does. Of the Constitution Project's two branches, one is co-run by David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union. Their board of directors includes, in addition to one member of the Open Society Institute, a Republican congressman and the founder of the group, a conservative. All are constitutionalists, which is neither liberal nor conservative.

The Open Society Institute funds lots of worthwhile causes and is but one of many sponsors of the Constitution Project, which has, you'll find, well-established bipartisan credentials.

To invalidate anything a group run by Soros is one of many co-sponsors of as a partisan organization with partisan goals is as disingenuous and inaccurate as my analogy that anything appearing on Fox News must be conservative propaganda.

I'd hope based on the adult and reasonable nature of your responses that you weren't a conspiracy nut who thinks George Soros, or Rupert Murdoch, or the Bilderbergers or lizard people, are trying to secretly run the world. Please don't disappoint me by demonstrating otherwise, I'll continue to give you the benefit of the doubt.

As I said, though many were captured abroad (as you will find if you research the cases), none to my knowledge were captured on the so-called "battlefield," but I don't really see how that changes anything unless it's an attempt to draw distinction where legally and practically none applies.

 

[Annie]

Also, I'm still wondering what the Constitution Project has to do with that Accountability Commission link you tossed out?

What did that have to do with the price of tea in China? How does it discredit or even relate to what I cited?

What I wrote was that the Constitutional Project was a sponsor of the new Soros group:

Commission on Accountability

That Soros also funds The Constitution Project: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/usprograms/focus/security/focus_areas/nshrgrantees_20091001.pdf.pdf

Money, money everywhere.

Excuse me for having doubts about Soros wanting to do good in any shape or form for anyone but Soros. The American Spectator : Killing Capitalism Soros-Style

For this reason, I chose not to go to the link, originally. With your response, I did. I'm still waiting for your examples of terrorists found on battlefield and tried in US.

You're familiar with what bipartisan means, right? In order to be bipartisan, a group must not exclude liberals. In fact, the opposite. If it's bipartisan, it includes support from liberals and convervatives, as the Constitution Project does. Of the Constitution Project's two branches, one is co-run by David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union. Their board of directors includes, in addition to one member of the Open Society Institute, a Republican congressman and the founder of the group, a conservative. All are constitutionalists, which is neither liberal nor conservative.

The Open Society Institute funds lots of worthwhile causes and is but one of many sponsors of the Constitution Project, which has, you'll find, well-established bipartisan credentials.

To invalidate anything a group run by Soros is one of many co-sponsors of as a partisan organization with partisan goals is as disingenuous and inaccurate as my analogy that anything appearing on Fox News must be conservative propaganda.

I'd hope based on the adult and reasonable nature of your responses that you weren't a conspiracy nut who thinks George Soros, or Rupert Murdoch, or the Bilderbergers or lizard people, are trying to secretly run the world. Please don't disappoint me by demonstrating otherwise, I'll continue to give you the benefit of the doubt.

As I said, though many were captured abroad (as you will find if you research the cases), none to my knowledge were captured on the so-called "battlefield," but I don't really see how that changes anything unless it's an attempt to draw distinction where legally and practically none applies.

Thanks for the political vocabulary lesson, but I've probably held my BA in political science from before you were born. Did you see the response above? There are reasons not to trust Soros Billionaire who broke the Bank of England - Telegraph

He's no friend of our country or any for that matter. He wants the US on the level of Senegal, which Obama seems to want also.

 

[QUENTIN]

I'm just looking for the cases. Padillia was arrested in US, sent to Gitmo, ordered for trial in US. I'm looking for people that were caught on the battlefield, and brought to US to stand trial.

I can think of those with Ft. Dix, arrested in US, tried in US. The Y2K attempt, arrested in US or maybe CA, but chain of evidence in tact. The wannabees down in FL. The al Qaeda guys right after 9/11, one in Peoria, one in Macomb, both hiding out near universities. But from the battlefield? I can't think of one.

None were captured on the battlefield that I'm aware of. Many were arrested by foreigners and sent here, or arrested by our agents in foreign countries. Others arrested here by domestic police and security agencies. I'm not seeing the distinction without difference in how being captured on a nebulous "battlefield" (anywhere in a foreign country we are occupying) significantly changes things. What the 195 convictions demonstrate is that our court system is more than adept at trying AND CONVICTING terrorism suspects since 9/11. Well because of little things like rights being read. Evidence preserved and kept in chain of custody. I mean they didn't get Daniel Pearl's head from SMK

You really should research the cases because in many instances, the only evidence was that one person was acquainted with another, or visited websites, or pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda without ever actually taking part in any terrorist activities. Yet they were convicted to supermax prison for life. For those behind 9/11 like KSM, well-known long time figures of Al-Qaeda, the fact that a tortured confession is potentially inadmissible won't cause so much as a dent in the prosecution's case. There is so much else to tie him to terrorism and assure an easy conviction. And those are the ones who've been released under this or the previous administration. More than a few came back to attack our troops. Pentagon Releases List of Gitmo Detainees Who Returned to Terrorism - Political Punch

One thing a lot of folks here seem to be forgetting is that the DOJ is only trying these high profile suspects in US courts, they've got a multi-tiered system of justice now including military commissions and even preventitive detention without trial to assure no one gets off (even the genuinely innocent). Holder has asserted the right to detain suspects EVEN IF they are found not guilty in a criminal court or military commission. The only reason this lot is being tried in NYC is because they're high profile and the case is a slam dunk. If there were any doubt about that, they'd still be rotting in a cage.The above bolded is the reason that it's obviously politically motivated, they don't need this drama, they want a show trial, not about the terrorists, but red meat for the leftistas.

There is NO evidence or precedent to suggest they have any chance of getting off and a mountain that suggests otherwise. But even in the nigh impossible case that they're found not guilty, they'll still be held indefinitely. No one's walking free from this no matter what, that's been assured in advance which is why this is essentially a show trial.

Guantanamo - Salon.com (again, read the substance and the sources (mostly official and government), don't just poo-poo it off the bat because the writer works for a left-leaning site.

If you really think about the argument Obama made yesterday -- when he described the five categories of detainees and the procedures to which each will be subjected -- it becomes manifest just how profound a violation of Western conceptions of justice this is. What Obama is saying is this: we'll give real trials only to those detainees we know in advance we will convict. For those we don't think we can convict in a real court, we'll get convictions in the military commissions I'm creating. For those we can't convict even in my military commissions, we'll just imprison them anyway with no charges ("preventively detain" them).

The very fact that you are ok with a 'show trial.' That even if 'acquitted' you are all for holding them in custody, demonstrates how little you value the judicial system. I hope it's because you don't understand it.

The left doesn't support show trials, or trials for some but not others which makes any real trial for show. So this may be for political points, but it's not for the so-called "leftistas" it's for rule of law people, hoping to distract them from all the secret military commissions or preventative detention cases. While definitely bad, it is better than the alternative which would have no trials for anyone and be a total repudiation of law and justice.

Never did I say I was okay with a show trial, I posted that in fact to highlight why even this trial is no victory for justice and nothing to cause a fuss over since it's just a show with a guaranteed conviction. I'm very much opposed to Obama's multi-tiered system of "justice" as I've made clear elsewhere on these forums more than once.

That these trials will be held in US courts is a positive marred and largely invalidated by the fact that the justice system will not apply to all. The alternative is not to have the justice system apply to NO ONE as those opposed to this trial advocate, but rather the opposite, the recognition that to be a just society and not cave in to terrorism, we must trust our legal system and try all detainees in it.

 

[QUENTIN]

Thanks for the political vocabulary lesson, but I've probably held my BA in political science from before you were born. Did you see the response above? There are reasons not to trust Soros Billionaire who broke the Bank of England - Telegraph

He's no friend of our country or any for that matter. He wants the US on the level of Senegal, which Obama seems to want also.

You're welcome, congratulations on reaching old age =). Understanding what bipartisan means then, I'm sure you'll understand how you questioning the group's position as bipartisan despite bipartisan membership, leadership, support, and recognition because Soros' organization is one of many that gives it grant money was without merit and didn't demonstrate anything except that they have support from liberals as well, which one would expect of anything bipartisan.

There are good reasons not to trust any billionaire. My point is that a connection to something Soros sponsors does not invalidate a group's legitimacy or bipartisan credentials and, moreover, NOTHING invalidates the facts asserted that are well sourced, independently verifiable, and undisputed. Talking about Soros seems a distraction from the issue rather than anything substantive and risks making you sound like the tinfoil hat crowd, which the Obama conspiracy stuff only further indicates.

Really? I think he's a shitty president too. But you believe he "wants the US on the level of Senegal"? That's really conspiracy-minded claptrap without evidence. If you said you think his policies would bankrupt us into third world status, I'd disagree and be open to debate, but to think he desires it is pretty out there.

 

[Annie]

None were captured on the battlefield that I'm aware of. Many were arrested by foreigners and sent here, or arrested by our agents in foreign countries. Others arrested here by domestic police and security agencies. I'm not seeing the distinction without difference in how being captured on a nebulous "battlefield" (anywhere in a foreign country we are occupying) significantly changes things. What the 195 convictions demonstrate is that our court system is more than adept at trying AND CONVICTING terrorism suspects since 9/11. Well because of little things like rights being read. Evidence preserved and kept in chain of custody. I mean they didn't get Daniel Pearl's head from SMK

You really should research the cases because in many instances, the only evidence was that one person was acquainted with another, or visited websites, or pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda without ever actually taking part in any terrorist activities. Yet they were convicted to supermax prison for life. For those behind 9/11 like KSM, well-known long time figures of Al-Qaeda, the fact that a tortured confession is potentially inadmissible won't cause so much as a dent in the prosecution's case. There is so much else to tie him to terrorism and assure an easy conviction. And those are the ones who've been released under this or the previous administration. More than a few came back to attack our troops. Pentagon Releases List of Gitmo Detainees Who Returned to Terrorism - Political Punch

One thing a lot of folks here seem to be forgetting is that the DOJ is only trying these high profile suspects in US courts, they've got a multi-tiered system of justice now including military commissions and even preventitive detention without trial to assure no one gets off (even the genuinely innocent). Holder has asserted the right to detain suspects EVEN IF they are found not guilty in a criminal court or military commission. The only reason this lot is being tried in NYC is because they're high profile and the case is a slam dunk. If there were any doubt about that, they'd still be rotting in a cage.The above bolded is the reason that it's obviously politically motivated, they don't need this drama, they want a show trial, not about the terrorists, but red meat for the leftistas.

There is NO evidence or precedent to suggest they have any chance of getting off and a mountain that suggests otherwise. But even in the nigh impossible case that they're found not guilty, they'll still be held indefinitely. No one's walking free from this no matter what, that's been assured in advance which is why this is essentially a show trial.

Guantanamo - Salon.com (again, read the substance and the sources (mostly official and government), don't just poo-poo it off the bat because the writer works for a left-leaning site.

The very fact that you are ok with a 'show trial.' That even if 'acquitted' you are all for holding them in custody, demonstrates how little you value the judicial system. I hope it's because you don't understand it.

The left doesn't support show trials, or trials for some but not others which makes any real trial for show. So this may be for political points, but it's not for the so-called "leftistas" it's for rule of law people, hoping to distract them from all the secret military commissions or preventative detention cases. While definitely bad, it is better than the alternative which would have no trials for anyone and be a total repudiation of law and justice.

Never did I say I was okay with a show trial, I posted that in fact to highlight why even this trial is no victory for justice and nothing to cause a fuss over since it's just a show with a guaranteed conviction. I'm very much opposed to Obama's multi-tiered system of "justice" as I've made clear elsewhere on these forums more than once.

That these trials will be held in US courts is a positive marred and largely invalidated by the fact that the justice system will not apply to all. The alternative is not to have the justice system apply to NO ONE and those opposed to this trial advocate, but rather the opposite, the recognition that to be a just society and not cave in to terrorism, we must trust our legal system and try all detains in it.

Well then, why did you write about the other levels?

One thing a lot of folks here seem to be forgetting is that the DOJ is only trying these high profile suspects in US courts, they've got a multi-tiered system of justice now including military commissions and even preventitive detention without trial to assure no one gets off (even the genuinely innocent). Holder has asserted the right to detain suspects EVEN IF they are found not guilty in a criminal court or military commission.

Holder really admires our system of laws. Including the Constitution.

But even in the nigh impossible case that they're found not guilty, they'll still be held indefinitely. No one's walking free from this no matter what, that's been assured in advance which is why this is essentially a show trial.

Just to throw everyone off? No, what you originally wrote was true, it's even in the NYT. There was SCOTUS approved military courts open, the administration is throwing caution to the wind, hoping to give the leftistas their blood, while hoping they still can convict. Good luck with all of it.

 

[rightwinger]

Will pending 9/11 trial prosecute Bush administration? No

It may embarass them though

 

[Annie]

Will pending 9/11 trial prosecute Bush administration? No

It may embarass them though

Good strawman, all in one post! I'd rep that if I could.

 

[QUENTIN]

Well then, why did you write about the other levels?

One thing a lot of folks here seem to be forgetting is that the DOJ is only trying these high profile suspects in US courts, they've got a multi-tiered system of justice now including military commissions and even preventitive detention without trial to assure no one gets off (even the genuinely innocent). Holder has asserted the right to detain suspects EVEN IF they are found not guilty in a criminal court or military commission.

Holder really admires our system of laws. Including the Constitution.

But even in the nigh impossible case that they're found not guilty, they'll still be held indefinitely. No one's walking free from this no matter what, that's been assured in advance which is why this is essentially a show trial.

Just to throw everyone off? No, what you originally wrote was true, it's even in the NYT. There was SCOTUS approved military courts open, the administration is throwing caution to the wind, hoping to give the leftistas their blood, while hoping they still can convict. Good luck with all of it.

I'm not sure you're seriously asking me that, but I'll assume you are.

I wrote about the other levels, in obviously critical language (calling them "show trials" that will convict "even the genuinely innocent") to make the two obvious arguments evident from what I wrote: those opposed to these trials on safety grounds have no merit to their concern because there is no possibility the defendants will go free AND those touting this as a sweeping win for the justice system and rule of law have little merit to their claims because it's only being applied in cases where we know in advance we can secure a conviction, for all else there is no justice.

Did you read the link I cited? It makes the same argument at more length and in more depth, comparing the trial to Alice in Wonderland. How on Earth could you think I was calling them show trials and a multi-tiered system of justice that will convict the innocent if I was supporting them? Holder certainly doesn't admire or respect our laws and Constitution, that was one point, and neither do those opposed to having these trials in our justice system, that was the other.

 

[Claudette]

Of course it be a prosecution of Bush's administration. Everything will be layed out in Court and I think thats Holders idea. I think thats why he insisits on trying these guys as criminals. After all Politics is way more important that protecting the country.

I just wonder how much damage this will do to the CIA and all those folks who keep us safe?? Holder is a flamming liberal idiot who doesn't really care how this will affect the way we gather info in future and he sure could care less about those that are out in the trenches gathering that info. Guy is a moron.

 

[Annie]

Well then, why did you write about the other levels?

One thing a lot of folks here seem to be forgetting is that the DOJ is only trying these high profile suspects in US courts, they've got a multi-tiered system of justice now including military commissions and even preventitive detention without trial to assure no one gets off (even the genuinely innocent). Holder has asserted the right to detain suspects EVEN IF they are found not guilty in a criminal court or military commission.

Holder really admires our system of laws. Including the Constitution.

But even in the nigh impossible case that they're found not guilty, they'll still be held indefinitely. No one's walking free from this no matter what, that's been assured in advance which is why this is essentially a show trial.

Just to throw everyone off? No, what you originally wrote was true, it's even in the NYT. There was SCOTUS approved military courts open, the administration is throwing caution to the wind, hoping to give the leftistas their blood, while hoping they still can convict. Good luck with all of it.

I'm not sure you're seriously asking me that, but I'll assume you are.

I wrote about the other levels, in obviously critical language (calling them "show trials" that will convict "even the genuinely innocent") to make the two obvious arguments evident from what I wrote: those opposed to these trials on safety grounds have no merit to their concern because there is no possibility the defendants will go free AND those touting this as a sweeping win for the justice system and rule of law have little merit to their claims because it's only being applied in cases where we know in advance we can secure a conviction, for all else there is no justice.

Did you read the link I cited? It makes the same argument at more length and in more depth, comparing the trial to Alice in Wonderland. How on Earth could you think I was calling them show trials and a multi-tiered system of justice that will convict the innocent if I was supporting them? Holder certainly doesn't admire or respect our laws and Constitution, that was one point, and neither do those opposed to having these trials in our justice system, that was the other.

Back to the original argument, I disagree with Glenn, no surprise there. I don't think they are for 'show' at all. I fail to see how our system can be used in the way he thinks or that Holder's people can be so certain of conviction. We'll see on that front.

What I do believe is that these folks brought from Gitmo to NY will have Jihad via courts. Every problem with the case will be blamed on the former administration. We'll see what happens via that.

 

[DiamondDave]

Is that what this trial is about? Gee whiz I thought it was about the fiery deaths of 3000 innocent people in an office building. Silly me.

Nope, thats what the Iraq war was about...no wait, that war did happen right after that attack but it has nothing to do with 9/11. My bad.

No.. you hyper-partisan idiot winger



It did not happen right after and you forget little things like cease-fire violations over YEARS that justified the continuation of hostilities....

 

[Rinata]

Isn't it funny that that report is from Fox News??? I have not heard that from anybody else. Are they trying to pin something on Obama, yet again?? Or are they truly afraid for GWB??

 

[ihopehefails]

I really don't mind if it highlights how this evidence was obtained or how it makes some officials look but what should concern everyone is that some evidence may not be admitted into court because of ongoing activities and evidence that is presented in court may be thrown out because they were obtained without following the proper procedures. Whatever evidence is needed for a conviction may either get thrown out or not presented which may mean the guy might walk.

Also, if any evidence presented is shown to be gotten through the supposed illegal activities of the Bush administration then it could lead to prosecutions of Bush officials and agents that worked for the admistration. This is why I think this is being done so that the left can get their political revenge on someone because why would they take the risk of letting someone walk to do this. They will probably say "due process" but that due process is also satisfied by a military tribunal like we do for enemy soldiers picked up on the battle field so why would you take the risk knowing what will happen in a public trial for people who were picked up on the battlefield?

What people don't realize is that the point of due process of law is to protect citizens from being taken and held for no reason by the government such as the things they do in other countries. I know a few people have been taken and held longer than normal but the constitution provides the government the power to do so during war or during and insurrection. This is why it is constitutionally legal to avoid due process sometimes and since Osama has officially declared war on the US and not on the 4000 citizens that he murdered then I say that we are at a state of war with a terrorist organization so taking them off the street without the normal due process of law is constitutionally legal for Al-queda and their soldiers.

 

[Toome]

I think the fear is that the trial will become a media circus with reporters swallowing the bait hook, line and sinker on whatever distractions the defense throws in. It's a valid concern. The trial should be on prosecuting those responsible for the 9/11 attacks; however, it will become an attempt to show how the Bush administration was wrong in the execution of its policies against al Qai'da. Still, in the end, it all depends on the strength of the judge. During the OJ trial, Judge Ito was too weak, and he allowed the whole trial to become a laughing stock.

The other thing that complicates the trial is that the defendants were handled as military targets. There's nothing wrong with this: Congress supported the decision. The problem is that the military has a different way of handling military detainees, wholly within the Uniform Code of Military Justice and other congressional directives but not necessarily appropriate within a civilian court of law. The issue is not whether these actions were illegal; they weren't illegal. It's whether or not they're permissible in court. It's like starting out playing tackle football but being scored in the end by rules for chess. It will be interesting how the court rules on this; it will be interesting which evidence is permitted; it will be interesting whether or not classified information is declassified in order to prosecute the case.

 

[Annie]

Isn't it funny that that report is from Fox News??? I have not heard that from anybody else. Are they trying to pin something on Obama, yet again?? Or are they truly afraid for GWB??

If FOX carried and true, does it make it non-reportable? Could it possibly be possible that other outlets are choosing not to report news?