911 terrorists to be tried in NYC

[rightwinger]

If they want to confer my rights as an American citizen onto terrorists, then those rights have become meaningless.

Bush is partly to blame for this. He violated the principle of swift justice by holding these individuals for years. Now we get to watch the perversion of our rights for a political show that will escape the insensibilites of those with evil intent.

They committed an attack on American citizens on US soil. The proper juristiction is in the US. I can't imagine a better place than NYC

 

[Modbert]

your right...I can only go by how well the Zacarias Moussaoui trial went.

4 years, he went up there and said every possible negative thing about our country so it can find its way back to the Middle East and used as a recruiting tool

No doubt these soon to be trials will do the same

I highly doubt their words in a court of law where they are going to be killed would be a good recruiting tool. I would figure being healthy and alive would be a better one.

 

[Andrew2382]

there is no better recruitment then the glorification of one's death

 

[eots]

lol...you do know that clinton had a chance to take Bin Laden out right?

Clinton saw the attack on the WTC in 93 as a criminal matter not a terror strike. He chose to treat the Trade Center attack as an isolated criminal act, devoid of serious foriegn policy or military implications. Over the following month he made bad decisions over and over again.

First he left the case in the hands of the FBI which was headed by a man he disliked and did not trust and was going to fire. He treated the bombing as a law enforcement matter and not a counter intelligence inviestiation, thus cutting the CIA out of the fight against terrorism, and Clinton didn't even meet with his handpicked CIA director to consider alternative approaches to fighting internation terrorism. This all ensured Bin laden to prosper


Clinton literally had Osama in his sights

Twice in 2000, including one time after the USS Cole bombing, Clinton had bin Laden in his sights and failed to pull the trigger, according to a senior Pentagon official familiar with covert counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan at the time.

He said the CIA had equipped pro-U.S. factions on the ground in Afghanistan with high-tech surveillance gear from the Defense Department to track bin Laden.

They were armed with sniper rifles and shoulder-fired rocket launchers, the official explained, and had the OK to assassinate bin Laden on orders from U.S. intelligence back in Washington.

"There were surveillance systems brought in-country, and they were doing observations and watching some of the likely places bin Laden frequented, such as Tora Bora, and guest-houses in the area," said the official, who requested anonymity. "And we were viewing" the satellite images relayed from Afghanistan.

"Some of it was collaborative – some DOD, some CIA – but we were looking," he said. "And Clinton had opportunities to take him out and didn't take them."

"One was more a command-and-control issue – when they should have made a decision to shoot, but it never got out of country, because the bureaucracy of carrying [the order] back [to Afghanistan] through channels was too much, and the opportunity just disappeared," he said. "And then another one when Clinton said 'No.'"

The Pentagon official explained that Clinton feared the paid CIA recruits might hit innocent Afghans.

"There was actionable intelligence provided by that gear, by the optics," he said. "But once it went up the chain of command, it got into stuff like, 'How sure are you guys about that 6-5 guy in the middle of that group? It kind of looks like him, but how sure are you?'"

"Clinton didn't want to have an accidental shot kill innocent civilians," he added. "But everyone was pretty certain it was Osama bin Laden. We had images of his face."


but hey it's fun to put the blame just on one person.

you only further prove my point...I mean what a stupid partisan response...to try and support your stupid and flawed positon

 

[Andrew2382]

lol I was simply going on your omg we should have followed the signs that 1 FBI agent said would happen and reports etc... when it's easy to blame one president but you can't go back to the one behind him and point out the major mistakes he did concerning Terrorism.

YOU CAN NOT TREAT TERRORISM AS A CRIME!!!!!

This really isn't a difficult concept to understand you tin foil anarchy loving ******* moron

 

[jillian]

so we shouldn't have tried Timothy McVeigh?

you know, if terrorism isn't a crime and all...

 

[eots]

lol I was simply going on your omg we should have followed the signs that 1 FBI agent said would happen and reports etc... when it's easy to blame one president but you can't go back to the one behind him and point out the major mistakes he did concerning Terrorism.

YOU CAN NOT TREAT TERRORISM AS A CRIME!!!!!

This really isn't a difficult concept to understand you tin foil anarchy loving ******* moron

define terrorism..and by the way all caps large font dont make your point anymore valid...just sayin

 

[rightwinger]

there is no better recruitment then the glorification of one's death

Nor the denial of basic human rights

 

[saveliberty]

your right...I can only go by how well the Zacarias Moussaoui trial went.

4 years, he went up there and said every possible negative thing about our country so it can find its way back to the Middle East and used as a recruiting tool

No doubt these soon to be trials will do the same

I highly doubt their words in a court of law where they are going to be killed would be a good recruiting tool. I would figure being healthy and alive would be a better one.

Why won't it be a good recruiting tool? Suicide bombers know their fate, yet no shortage there. Your value system of human life is different from theirs. Andrew2382 ahs got this one right.

 

[Liability]

so we shouldn't have tried Timothy McVeigh?

you know, if terrorism isn't a crime and all...

When committed by a U.S. citizen in America at a time we are not (yet at least) actually at war, it's difficult to imagine how else we could have treated McVeigh.

But just because we treated HIS conduct (at that time and under THOSE pre-9/11/2001 circumstances) as a mere "crime" does NOT imply that we are obliged (or even 'should" treat hostile foreign agents committing acts of war within our borders) as mere criminals.

Your would-be "logic" lacks very basic and necessary ingredients OF logic., Jillie. It lacks actual logic.

 

[Liability]

If they want to confer my rights as an American citizen onto terrorists, then those rights have become meaningless.

Bush is partly to blame for this. He violated the principle of swift justice by holding these individuals for years. Now we get to watch the perversion of our rights for a political show that will escape the insensibilites of those with evil intent.

They committed an attack on American citizens on US soil. The proper juristiction is in the US. I can't imagine a better place than NYC

They committed an attack, yes. But the did not commit mere crimes. They committed acts of war, illegal acts of war, targetting civilians. The mistake is treating it as a mere "crime." And once we remove that false label, then there is no longer any facile poetic justification for inflicting THEM on any of us, again, on OUR soil.

You probably can't "imagine" any "better" place to hold them accountable. That only underscores your severe lack of imagination.

Gitmo would have done JUST fine.. A military tribunal would also have served our purposes much better.

Using our CIVIL/CRIMINAL Courts to "try" them for "crimes," only proves that we have failed to learn the lesson that President Clinton, Attorney General Janet Reno and her idiot appointee, Jamie Gorelick, ALL failed to comprehend back in Bubba's Administration's day: i.e., that it is a huge mistake to equate what these evil bastards do (and try to do) with mere crime or criminal conspiracy.

 

[Rinata]

This is some of the transcript from Anderson Cooper 360 that aired last night:

Today's announcement comes as the Obama administration is scrambling to meet deadlines on how to deal with the remaining prisoners at Guantanamo.

President Obama, who is traveling in Asia, signed an executive order in January to close the prison within a year. Now, today, a lot of Republicans and conservatives blasted Mr. Obama's decision. They call it dangerous, shortsighted, said it was taking the country back to September 10, when this country had its guard down. Some also said it was cowardly of his administration to make the announcement while Mr. Obama was in Asia, so he wouldn't have to answer his critics.

Now, we should point out that the idea of trying terrorists in court didn't come out of thin air. In fact, "Keeping Them Honest," back in May of 2006, President Bush himself said he, too, would like to close Guantanamo and put terrorists on trial in America. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, JULY 11, 2006)

GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We would like to end the Guantanamo. We would like it to be empty. And we're now in the process of working with countries to repatriate people.

But there are some that, if put out on the streets, would create grave harm to American citizens and other citizens of the world. And, therefore, I think they ought to be tried in courts here in the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CNN.com - Transcripts

 

[Liability]

* * * *

(VIDEO CLIP, JULY 11, 2006)

* * * *

But there are some that, if put out on the streets, would create grave harm to American citizens and other citizens of the world. And, therefore, I think they ought to be tried in courts here in the United States.

* * * *

To the extent this is what President Bush said in 2006, can you verify it's the position he ended up on?

I don't think so.

And, more fundamentally: to whatever (questionable) extent that position DID remain his view on the issue, then to that very extent he was mistaken.

It is still a mistake.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

there is no better recruitment then the glorification of one's death

If KSM is found guilty and executed, which is what should happen .... it will be exploited by Al Qaeda and expose all Americans and the USA to reprisal attacks in his name. On the other hand if he is let go because all of the evidence is thrown out by a liberal "legislate from the Bench" type of judge then one can expect the EXACT same thing.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

so we shouldn't have tried Timothy McVeigh?

you know, if terrorism isn't a crime and all...

What were the charges McVeigh was convicted of?

 

[Rinata]

* * * *

(VIDEO CLIP, JULY 11, 2006)

* * * *

But there are some that, if put out on the streets, would create grave harm to American citizens and other citizens of the world. And, therefore, I think they ought to be tried in courts here in the United States.

* * * *

To the extent this is what President Bush said in 2006, can you verify it's the position he ended up on?

I don't think so.

And, more fundamentally: to whatever (questionable) extent that position DID remain his view on the issue, then to that very extent he was mistaken.

It is still a mistake.

First of all, what makes you think they will be put on the streets?? Secondly, they want to try just 5 of them right now.

I think this whole situation is being used as another tool to ***** about Obama. And to promote the fear that conservatives are famous for. I never saw such a big bunch of scaredy cats in my life.

The same scare tactics were used when I was a kid about Russia. On the bus there was a huge picture of Nikita Khrushchev with a caption that said, "We will bury you". We had to practice hiding under our desks in case there was an attack by the Russians. Not a damn thing ever happened.

And I think this constant harping about the terrorists is along the same lines. Yeah, they did get us good. But that is no guarantee that it will happen again. And being afraid of them is exactly what they want.

I say bring them back to NY and fry them!!!

 

[eots]

* * * *

(VIDEO CLIP, JULY 11, 2006)

* * * *

But there are some that, if put out on the streets, would create grave harm to American citizens and other citizens of the world. And, therefore, I think they ought to be tried in courts here in the United States.

* * * *

To the extent this is what President Bush said in 2006, can you verify it's the position he ended up on?

I don't think so.

And, more fundamentally: to whatever (questionable) extent that position DID remain his view on the issue, then to that very extent he was mistaken.

It is still a mistake.

First of all, what makes you think they will be put on the streets?? Secondly, they want to try just 5 of them right now.

I think this whole situation is being used as another tool to ***** about Obama. And to promote the fear that conservatives are famous for. I never saw such a big bunch of scaredy cats in my life.

The same scare tactics were used when I was a kid about Russia. On the bus there was a huge picture of Nikita Khrushchev with a caption that said, "We will bury you". We had to practice hiding under our desks in case there was an attack by the Russians. Not a damn thing ever happened.

And I think this constant harping about the terrorists is along the same lines. Yeah, they did get us good. But that is no guarantee that it will happen again. And being afraid of them is exactly what they want.

I say bring them back to NY and fry them!!!

and by fry them you mean give them a fair trail to determine their guilt or innocence right ?

 

[CurveLight]

there is no better recruitment then the glorification of one's death

If KSM is found guilty and executed, which is what should happen .... it will be exploited by Al Qaeda and expose all Americans and the USA to reprisal attacks in his name. On the other hand if he is let go because all of the evidence is thrown out by a liberal "legislate from the Bench" type of judge then one can expect the EXACT same thing.

Do you practice this or does playing the victim card come coded in your dna?

 

[Darkwind]

it does not matter if you write a law that's says torture is legal or create a definition of so torture is not torture and the information gained by such methods has proven to be tainted and for the most part useless...anyone that supports it is a fool

Wrong!!!

Information gained is checked and cross-checked. When false info is given it was back to the water board for the perp.

so if you follow through with your twisted logic police should waterboard suspected criminals or gang members until eventually maybe some of the information is in some way confirmed as accurate or useful..no need for charges or any due process or representation just the belief that they may know something that could possible thwart something that could pose potential risk to others..

How do you even come to that kind of conclusion?

The people in Gitmo are NOT American citizens and do not deserve the rights enjoyed by American citizens.

 

[rightwinger]

Wrong!!!

Information gained is checked and cross-checked. When false info is given it was back to the water board for the perp.

so if you follow through with your twisted logic police should waterboard suspected criminals or gang members until eventually maybe some of the information is in some way confirmed as accurate or useful..no need for charges or any due process or representation just the belief that they may know something that could possible thwart something that could pose potential risk to others..

How do you even come to that kind of conclusion?

The people in Gitmo are NOT American citizens and do not deserve the rights enjoyed by American citizens.

Where in the Constitution does it say laws only apply to American Citizens?

Are you saying that if a Mexican commits a crime in the US that the US laws and protections do not apply to him?