Dick Cheney should really stop playing the blame game.

[Coyote]

But we haven't. The guy was singing about contacts then was treated to criminals USA. Now he's quiet, we're more threatened than necessary and it's by administrative choice.

LOL. Do you always just make shit up like this? Or did you get this from someone else who makes shit up?

Over and over again you prove your ignorance.

He makes a good point. Do you have any facts to support that claim?

 

[Annie]

LOL. Do you always just make shit up like this? Or did you get this from someone else who makes shit up?

Over and over again you prove your ignorance.

He makes a good point. Do you have any facts to support that claim?

Indeed, as should anyone that's bothering posting on a messageboard.

Nigerian Man Indicted in Bombing Attempt - CBS News

...There is no specific mention of terrorism in the seven-page indictment, but President Obama considers the incident a failed strike against the United States by an affiliate of al Qaeda.

Abdulmutallab has told U.S. investigators he received training and instructions from al Qaeda operatives in Yemen. His father warned the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria that his son had drifted into extremism in Yemen, but that threat was never fully digested by the U.S. security apparatus.

Since the failed attack, airlines and the Transportation Security Administration have boosted security in airports in the U.S. and around the world. Mr. Obama has said the government had information that could have stopped the attempted attack, but intelligence agencies failed to connect the dots. ...

On the Constitution and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab - Law Blog - WSJ

...Left-leaning politico Michael Kinsley, writing in the NYT on Monday, put forth a defense of the Obama administration. Kinsley summarizes the “gruesome anomaly” posed by the situation:

[T]he United States government will blow you to smithereens and consider it a good day’s work if you’re a Qaeda member dreaming of jihadist glory while residing somewhere outside the United States, but will pay for your lawyer if you get caught in the act within our borders.

So is this where you draw the line? At our borders? Commit a terrorist act outside our borders and it’s an act of war — while inside it’s a common crime? Yes, says Kinsley:

A line has to be drawn somewhere to determine which of these utterly different standards of government behavior is applied where — and the nation’s border is as good a line as any.​

Start moving the border, argues Kinsley, and interesting things start to happen. Do we take away the rights of Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Army psychiatrist charged with killing 13 people at Fort Hood who was influenced by an Islamic cleric?

And, writes Kinsley, “what about Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber? What about the Columbine high school killers? Are they terrorists? Is American justice too good for them?”...

White House: Justice Dept. made decision to hold Detroit bomber in civilian justice system | Washington Examiner

White House: Justice Dept. made decision to hold Detroit bomber in civilian justice system

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
01/03/10 9:43 AM EST

Top Obama counterterrorism adviser John Brennan says the Justice Department made the decision to handle the case of Detroit terror bomb suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in the criminal justice system.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Brennan was asked why the Obama administration did not choose to treat Abdulmutallab as an enemy combatant. "He was arrested on U.S. soil," Brennan answered. "The Department of Justice makes that determination about what is the best tool to use."

Pressed about reports Abdulmutallab stopped talking to investigators after he was given a lawyer and read his Miranda rights, Brennan said, "We have an array of tools that we will use" in the case. "[Abdulmutallab] was in fact talking to people who were detaining him&hellipJust because somebody is going to be put into the criminal legal process doesn't mean we don't have other opportunities to get information from him."

Brennan conceded that Abdulmutallab "doesn't have to" give any information to FBI interrogators. But he said the administration still has some leverage over him. "He knows that there are certain things that are on the table, and if he wants to engage with us in a productive manner, there are ways that he can do that," Brennan said. He did not elaborate on what those things "on the table" are, although he appeared to be suggesting that Abdulmutallab could cooperate in return for more lenient treatment than he would otherwiest receive.

Brennan pointed out that there were a number of terrorism suspects captured during the Bush administration -- Richard Reid, Zacarias Moussaoui, Jose Padilla -- who were tried in the criminal justice system...

Note all those 'before' were certainly before the military tribunals were ok'd, well except for Padilla, a US citizen.

 

[Coyote]

Over and over again you prove your ignorance.

He makes a good point. Do you have any facts to support that claim?

Indeed, as should anyone that's bothering posting on a messageboard.

Nigerian Man Indicted in Bombing Attempt - CBS News



On the Constitution and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab - Law Blog - WSJ

...Left-leaning politico Michael Kinsley, writing in the NYT on Monday, put forth a defense of the Obama administration. Kinsley summarizes the “gruesome anomaly” posed by the situation:

[T]he United States government will blow you to smithereens and consider it a good day’s work if you’re a Qaeda member dreaming of jihadist glory while residing somewhere outside the United States, but will pay for your lawyer if you get caught in the act within our borders.

So is this where you draw the line? At our borders? Commit a terrorist act outside our borders and it’s an act of war — while inside it’s a common crime? Yes, says Kinsley:

A line has to be drawn somewhere to determine which of these utterly different standards of government behavior is applied where — and the nation’s border is as good a line as any.​

Start moving the border, argues Kinsley, and interesting things start to happen. Do we take away the rights of Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Army psychiatrist charged with killing 13 people at Fort Hood who was influenced by an Islamic cleric?

And, writes Kinsley, “what about Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber? What about the Columbine high school killers? Are they terrorists? Is American justice too good for them?”...

White House: Justice Dept. made decision to hold Detroit bomber in civilian justice system | Washington Examiner

White House: Justice Dept. made decision to hold Detroit bomber in civilian justice system

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
01/03/10 9:43 AM EST

Top Obama counterterrorism adviser John Brennan says the Justice Department made the decision to handle the case of Detroit terror bomb suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in the criminal justice system.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Brennan was asked why the Obama administration did not choose to treat Abdulmutallab as an enemy combatant. "He was arrested on U.S. soil," Brennan answered. "The Department of Justice makes that determination about what is the best tool to use."

Pressed about reports Abdulmutallab stopped talking to investigators after he was given a lawyer and read his Miranda rights, Brennan said, "We have an array of tools that we will use" in the case. "[Abdulmutallab] was in fact talking to people who were detaining him&hellipJust because somebody is going to be put into the criminal legal process doesn't mean we don't have other opportunities to get information from him."

Brennan conceded that Abdulmutallab "doesn't have to" give any information to FBI interrogators. But he said the administration still has some leverage over him. "He knows that there are certain things that are on the table, and if he wants to engage with us in a productive manner, there are ways that he can do that," Brennan said. He did not elaborate on what those things "on the table" are, although he appeared to be suggesting that Abdulmutallab could cooperate in return for more lenient treatment than he would otherwiest receive.

Brennan pointed out that there were a number of terrorism suspects captured during the Bush administration -- Richard Reid, Zacarias Moussaoui, Jose Padilla -- who were tried in the criminal justice system...

Note all those 'before' were certainly before the military tribunals were ok'd, well except for Padilla, a US citizen.

There is nothing in there that says he has clammed up and is refusing to talk - in fact, much of that sounds like partisan speculation. It sounds - from what you've provided - that they have plenty of tools to work with in getting information (without torture). He was also freely talking from the start which seems to indicate he wants to make some sort of bargain for more lenient treatment.

Our courts have shown themselves perfectly capable of trying terrorist suspects without comprising legitimate secrets, national security or the rule of law. As far as I know, the tribunals have not successfully tried a single suspect. It is much better for us as a nation to hold to the rule of law when we can because there is greater legitimacy in the verdict.

 

[Annie]

He makes a good point. Do you have any facts to support that claim?

Indeed, as should anyone that's bothering posting on a messageboard.

Nigerian Man Indicted in Bombing Attempt - CBS News



On the Constitution and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab - Law Blog - WSJ



White House: Justice Dept. made decision to hold Detroit bomber in civilian justice system | Washington Examiner

White House: Justice Dept. made decision to hold Detroit bomber in civilian justice system

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
01/03/10 9:43 AM EST

Top Obama counterterrorism adviser John Brennan says the Justice Department made the decision to handle the case of Detroit terror bomb suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in the criminal justice system.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Brennan was asked why the Obama administration did not choose to treat Abdulmutallab as an enemy combatant. "He was arrested on U.S. soil," Brennan answered. "The Department of Justice makes that determination about what is the best tool to use."

Pressed about reports Abdulmutallab stopped talking to investigators after he was given a lawyer and read his Miranda rights, Brennan said, "We have an array of tools that we will use" in the case. "[Abdulmutallab] was in fact talking to people who were detaining him&hellipJust because somebody is going to be put into the criminal legal process doesn't mean we don't have other opportunities to get information from him."

Brennan conceded that Abdulmutallab "doesn't have to" give any information to FBI interrogators. But he said the administration still has some leverage over him. "He knows that there are certain things that are on the table, and if he wants to engage with us in a productive manner, there are ways that he can do that," Brennan said. He did not elaborate on what those things "on the table" are, although he appeared to be suggesting that Abdulmutallab could cooperate in return for more lenient treatment than he would otherwiest receive.

Brennan pointed out that there were a number of terrorism suspects captured during the Bush administration -- Richard Reid, Zacarias Moussaoui, Jose Padilla -- who were tried in the criminal justice system...

Note all those 'before' were certainly before the military tribunals were ok'd, well except for Padilla, a US citizen.

There is nothing in there that says he has clammed up and is refusing to talk - in fact, much of that sounds like partisan speculation. It sounds - from what you've provided - that they have plenty of tools to work with in getting information (without torture). He was also freely talking from the start which seems to indicate he wants to make some sort of bargain for more lenient treatment.

Our courts have shown themselves perfectly capable of trying terrorist suspects without comprising legitimate secrets, national security or the rule of law. As far as I know, the tribunals have not successfully tried a single suspect. It is much better for us as a nation to hold to the rule of law when we can because there is greater legitimacy in the verdict.

Hardly, he's no longer talking, which was clear if you read the entire articles. Kinsley is the only one of those defending along your logic, but that's to be expected. I don't read just the right.

 

[Liability]

He makes a good point. Do you have any facts to support that claim?

Indeed, as should anyone that's bothering posting on a messageboard.

Nigerian Man Indicted in Bombing Attempt - CBS News



On the Constitution and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab - Law Blog - WSJ



White House: Justice Dept. made decision to hold Detroit bomber in civilian justice system | Washington Examiner

White House: Justice Dept. made decision to hold Detroit bomber in civilian justice system

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
01/03/10 9:43 AM EST

Top Obama counterterrorism adviser John Brennan says the Justice Department made the decision to handle the case of Detroit terror bomb suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in the criminal justice system.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Brennan was asked why the Obama administration did not choose to treat Abdulmutallab as an enemy combatant. "He was arrested on U.S. soil," Brennan answered. "The Department of Justice makes that determination about what is the best tool to use."

Pressed about reports Abdulmutallab stopped talking to investigators after he was given a lawyer and read his Miranda rights, Brennan said, "We have an array of tools that we will use" in the case. "[Abdulmutallab] was in fact talking to people who were detaining him&hellipJust because somebody is going to be put into the criminal legal process doesn't mean we don't have other opportunities to get information from him."

Brennan conceded that Abdulmutallab "doesn't have to" give any information to FBI interrogators. But he said the administration still has some leverage over him. "He knows that there are certain things that are on the table, and if he wants to engage with us in a productive manner, there are ways that he can do that," Brennan said. He did not elaborate on what those things "on the table" are, although he appeared to be suggesting that Abdulmutallab could cooperate in return for more lenient treatment than he would otherwiest receive.

Brennan pointed out that there were a number of terrorism suspects captured during the Bush administration -- Richard Reid, Zacarias Moussaoui, Jose Padilla -- who were tried in the criminal justice system...

Note all those 'before' were certainly before the military tribunals were ok'd, well except for Padilla, a US citizen.

There is nothing in there that says he has clammed up and is refusing to talk - in fact, much of that sounds like partisan speculation. It sounds - from what you've provided - that they have plenty of tools to work with in getting information (without torture). He was also freely talking from the start which seems to indicate he wants to make some sort of bargain for more lenient treatment.

Our courts have shown themselves perfectly capable of trying terrorist suspects without comprising legitimate secrets, national security or the rule of law. As far as I know, the tribunals have not successfully tried a single suspect. It is much better for us as a nation to hold to the rule of law when we can because there is greater legitimacy in the verdict.

Dude, he's got a lawyer now. Do you imagine that any freaking lawyer is going to permit his client to freely discuss such things with the very government that is prosecuting his client -- unless there is some serious consideration being given in exchange, like a limited prison term, etc? In other words, even if the guy IS now talking, it's only because we had to give up something. We shouldn't have to give up a single thing. Se should be extracting that information without so much as a passing thought about "Miranda" or lawyers or quid pro quos.

It's still mystifingly stupid. Terrorist caught. We want (arguably need, urgently) the information he has. But we deprive ourselves of the ability to GET that information from the terrorist by TELLING him, instead, that he has the right to remain silent....

This is what we get when we insist on accepting the mindless talking pointlesses of the modern American liberals. Terrorism is not mere criminality. But since the left has the reins, America refuses to heed the warning.

 

[The Rabbi]

So let's say I am wrong to claim the Bush admin created more terrorist attacks than anyone in modern history. I fully admit that was a false claim and I retract it.

No, dumbshit. That isn't what you claimed. Do you even understand what you write? Do you understand the difference between what you wrote above and in this post:

"Most Western Intel agencies fully agree the [Bush] admin's actions created more terrorist attacks than anyone in modern history."

You are inconsistent in what you claim, then equally inconsistent in your proof, then have to recant when your proof doesn't stack up.
Needless to say, whatever it is you want to say, the evidence doesn't support any of it.

You missed the point. I stated the BA actions increased terrorism. I backed that up but you conveniently edited my post so you could avoid that part. Are you guys really so desperate you will try to defend Bush by saying he only increased the threat of terrorism and not attacks themselves? I've already proven the increase in terrorist attacks but even if I didn't, the point is still valid. If Bush increased the threat of terrorism how is it possible to claim he was winning? How the hell are you guys going to try and reconcile that contradiction?

No. Again. That is not what you wrote. Your assertion was the most Western intelligence agencies said teh Bush administration created more terrorist attacks than any.
I am still waiting for proof of that assertion. I suspect I will be waiting forever while you jerk off over trying to defend yourself from Liability.

 

[CMike]

Indeed, as should anyone that's bothering posting on a messageboard.

Nigerian Man Indicted in Bombing Attempt - CBS News



On the Constitution and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab - Law Blog - WSJ



White House: Justice Dept. made decision to hold Detroit bomber in civilian justice system | Washington Examiner

Note all those 'before' were certainly before the military tribunals were ok'd, well except for Padilla, a US citizen.

There is nothing in there that says he has clammed up and is refusing to talk - in fact, much of that sounds like partisan speculation. It sounds - from what you've provided - that they have plenty of tools to work with in getting information (without torture). He was also freely talking from the start which seems to indicate he wants to make some sort of bargain for more lenient treatment.

Our courts have shown themselves perfectly capable of trying terrorist suspects without comprising legitimate secrets, national security or the rule of law. As far as I know, the tribunals have not successfully tried a single suspect. It is much better for us as a nation to hold to the rule of law when we can because there is greater legitimacy in the verdict.

Dude, he's got a lawyer now. Do you imagine that any freaking lawyer is going to permit his client to freely discuss such things with the very government that is prosecuting his client -- unless there is some serious consideration being given in exchange, like a limited prison term, etc? In other words, even if the guy IS now talking, it's only because we had to give up something. We shouldn't have to give up a single thing. Se should be extracting that information without so much as a passing thought about "Miranda" or lawyers or quid pro quos.

It's still mystifingly stupid. Terrorist caught. We want (arguably need, urgently) the information he has. But we deprive ourselves of the ability to GET that information from the terrorist by TELLING him, instead, that he has the right to remain silent....

This is what we get when we insist on accepting the mindless talking pointlesses of the modern American liberals. Terrorism is not mere criminality. But since the left has the reins, America refuses to heed the warning.

I just wanted to add a little to why al qaida terrorists shouldn't have civilian trials

1) How are you supposed to get witnesses? Subpoena material witnesses in a cave in Yemen? In foreign terrorism most witnesses are not accessible

2) Sensitive information. In a civilian trial. All parties get all available information. However, with terrorism, information is very precious. Do you want the terrorist and their lawyers to get sources for intelligence information? This information, other than getting sources killed, means that those sources won't be able to used to stop further terrorist attacks.

Military tribunals are more suited to keeping sensitive information secret, than a civilian trial.

In stopping terrorism, there is a lot we don't need to know. And that information is what will stop further terrorist attacks.

 

[AmericasBrave58]

The Bush administration spent Trillions of dollars fighting a war to supposedly rid us of the terrorist networks, as well as building a comprehensive anti-terrorist network and security apparatus.

But according to the right-wing propaganda machine, and Dick Cheney, it was not the structure put in place by the Bush administration, but it was instead the leadership of the Obama administration that's at fault.

In September of 2001, the Bush administration had been given actionable intelligence that a large-scale terrorist attack was imminent. A memo was given to the president himself warning him of this threat.

The Bush administration not only simply relied upon the pre-existing infrastructure to take care of this threat, but it disregarded the intelligence it did have.

So, by the right-wing logic:

If the "Christmas Bomber" is Obama's fault...

Then 9/11 is the Bush administration's fault.

And of course good ol' Dick Cheney was second in charge.

dick cheney should be in scheveningen.

Right ON!!!!!

 

[Coyote]

Indeed, as should anyone that's bothering posting on a messageboard.

Nigerian Man Indicted in Bombing Attempt - CBS News



On the Constitution and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab - Law Blog - WSJ



White House: Justice Dept. made decision to hold Detroit bomber in civilian justice system | Washington Examiner

Note all those 'before' were certainly before the military tribunals were ok'd, well except for Padilla, a US citizen.

There is nothing in there that says he has clammed up and is refusing to talk - in fact, much of that sounds like partisan speculation. It sounds - from what you've provided - that they have plenty of tools to work with in getting information (without torture). He was also freely talking from the start which seems to indicate he wants to make some sort of bargain for more lenient treatment.

Our courts have shown themselves perfectly capable of trying terrorist suspects without comprising legitimate secrets, national security or the rule of law. As far as I know, the tribunals have not successfully tried a single suspect. It is much better for us as a nation to hold to the rule of law when we can because there is greater legitimacy in the verdict.

Dude, he's got a lawyer now. Do you imagine that any freaking lawyer is going to permit his client to freely discuss such things with the very government that is prosecuting his client -- unless there is some serious consideration being given in exchange, like a limited prison term, etc? In other words, even if the guy IS now talking, it's only because we had to give up something. We shouldn't have to give up a single thing. Se should be extracting that information without so much as a passing thought about "Miranda" or lawyers or quid pro quos.

It's "dudette".

Aside from that, I thinhk any freaking lawyer's heard of "plea bargain".

It's still mystifingly stupid. Terrorist caught. We want (arguably need, urgently) the information he has. But we deprive ourselves of the ability to GET that information from the terrorist by TELLING him, instead, that he has the right to remain silent....

This is what we get when we insist on accepting the mindless talking pointlesses of the modern American liberals. Terrorism is not mere criminality. But since the left has the reins, America refuses to heed the warning.

So I wonder how much time passed between when he was caught and interogated extensively and when it was decided he would be tried in a federal court? I suspect they got a hell of a lot of info.

The court system is not limited to "mere criminality". It has successfully tried and convicted a number of terrorists.

Why do people have a problem with the rule of law?

 

[Coyote]

I just wanted to add a little to why al qaida terrorists shouldn't have civilian trials

1) How are you supposed to get witnesses? Subpoena material witnesses in a cave in Yemen? In foreign terrorism most witnesses are not accessible

2) Sensitive information. In a civilian trial. All parties get all available information. However, with terrorism, information is very precious. Do you want the terrorist and their lawyers to get sources for intelligence information? This information, other than getting sources killed, means that those sources won't be able to used to stop further terrorist attacks.

Military tribunals are more suited to keeping sensitive information secret, than a civilian trial.

In stopping terrorism, there is a lot we don't need to know. And that information is what will stop further terrorist attacks.

The courts have done a stellar job in trying and convicting (91% conviction rate) terrorists without comprising legitimate secrets or national security. Clearly it can be done and done successfully in many cases.

Not all cases are appropriate for civilian courts and I suspect each one is carefully reviewed prior to recommending the venue. After fall five of the Guantánamo detainees are still going to be tried before a military commission for the 2000 bombing of the Cole. It is not a one-size-fits-all scenario but in so far as it CAN be tried in a civil court according to the rule of law, the better, because of it's legitimacy and transparency justice will be seen to have occurred.

 

[Liability]

There is nothing in there that says he has clammed up and is refusing to talk - in fact, much of that sounds like partisan speculation. It sounds - from what you've provided - that they have plenty of tools to work with in getting information (without torture). He was also freely talking from the start which seems to indicate he wants to make some sort of bargain for more lenient treatment.

Our courts have shown themselves perfectly capable of trying terrorist suspects without comprising legitimate secrets, national security or the rule of law. As far as I know, the tribunals have not successfully tried a single suspect. It is much better for us as a nation to hold to the rule of law when we can because there is greater legitimacy in the verdict.

Dude, he's got a lawyer now. Do you imagine that any freaking lawyer is going to permit his client to freely discuss such things with the very government that is prosecuting his client -- unless there is some serious consideration being given in exchange, like a limited prison term, etc? In other words, even if the guy IS now talking, it's only because we had to give up something. We shouldn't have to give up a single thing. Se should be extracting that information without so much as a passing thought about "Miranda" or lawyers or quid pro quos.

It's "dudette".

Aside from that, I thinhk any freaking lawyer's heard of "plea bargain".

It's still mystifingly stupid. Terrorist caught. We want (arguably need, urgently) the information he has. But we deprive ourselves of the ability to GET that information from the terrorist by TELLING him, instead, that he has the right to remain silent....

This is what we get when we insist on accepting the mindless talking pointlesses of the modern American liberals. Terrorism is not mere criminality. But since the left has the reins, America refuses to heed the warning.

So I wonder how much time passed between when he was caught and interogated extensively and when it was decided he would be tried in a federal court? I suspect they got a hell of a lot of info.

The court system is not limited to "mere criminality". It has successfully tried and convicted a number of terrorists.

Why do people have a problem with the rule of law?

Yeah. Your gender just jumps off the page.

And OF COURSE lawyers who pracitice in the realm of criminal law have heard of "plea bargaining." In fact, that's what I had just finished SAYING. And WHY the U.S. should even have to engage in such "plea bargaining" with a terrorist to get needed intel while we are at war is beyond a mystery. THAT'S exactly WHY it's a fucking huge mistake to conflate the concept of "terrorist" with the concept of a mere "criminal."

Why do YOU people insist on confusing the concept of properly dealing with terrorists in a time of war with a "legal" matter?

There ARE already ways to insure that the "suspected" terrorist (you know, the one with the self immolated underpants) get's some opportunity to challenge his detention. They are known as military tribunals or military commissions. They have historically worked quite well. What we should cetainly NOT be doing is inserting this shit into our domestic civilian criminal justice system.

 

[CMike]

I just wanted to add a little to why al qaida terrorists shouldn't have civilian trials

1) How are you supposed to get witnesses? Subpoena material witnesses in a cave in Yemen? In foreign terrorism most witnesses are not accessible

2) Sensitive information. In a civilian trial. All parties get all available information. However, with terrorism, information is very precious. Do you want the terrorist and their lawyers to get sources for intelligence information? This information, other than getting sources killed, means that those sources won't be able to used to stop further terrorist attacks.

Military tribunals are more suited to keeping sensitive information secret, than a civilian trial.

In stopping terrorism, there is a lot we don't need to know. And that information is what will stop further terrorist attacks.

The courts have done a stellar job in trying and convicting (91% conviction rate) terrorists without comprising legitimate secrets or national security. Clearly it can be done and done successfully in many cases.

Not all cases are appropriate for civilian courts and I suspect each one is carefully reviewed prior to recommending the venue. After fall five of the Guantánamo detainees are still going to be tried before a military commission for the 2000 bombing of the Cole. It is not a one-size-fits-all scenario but in so far as it CAN be tried in a civil court according to the rule of law, the better, because of it's legitimacy and transparency justice will be seen to have occurred.

How do you know if national security was compromised or not?

I don't want transparency in a terrorist court case. The more information the terrorist and their lawyers have about methods used about intelligence agencies the stronger and more effective they become.

 

[CMike]

There is nothing in there that says he has clammed up and is refusing to talk - in fact, much of that sounds like partisan speculation. It sounds - from what you've provided - that they have plenty of tools to work with in getting information (without torture). He was also freely talking from the start which seems to indicate he wants to make some sort of bargain for more lenient treatment.

Our courts have shown themselves perfectly capable of trying terrorist suspects without comprising legitimate secrets, national security or the rule of law. As far as I know, the tribunals have not successfully tried a single suspect. It is much better for us as a nation to hold to the rule of law when we can because there is greater legitimacy in the verdict.

Dude, he's got a lawyer now. Do you imagine that any freaking lawyer is going to permit his client to freely discuss such things with the very government that is prosecuting his client -- unless there is some serious consideration being given in exchange, like a limited prison term, etc? In other words, even if the guy IS now talking, it's only because we had to give up something. We shouldn't have to give up a single thing. Se should be extracting that information without so much as a passing thought about "Miranda" or lawyers or quid pro quos.

It's "dudette".

Aside from that, I thinhk any freaking lawyer's heard of "plea bargain".

It's still mystifingly stupid. Terrorist caught. We want (arguably need, urgently) the information he has. But we deprive ourselves of the ability to GET that information from the terrorist by TELLING him, instead, that he has the right to remain silent....

This is what we get when we insist on accepting the mindless talking pointlesses of the modern American liberals. Terrorism is not mere criminality. But since the left has the reins, America refuses to heed the warning.

So I wonder how much time passed between when he was caught and interogated extensively and when it was decided he would be tried in a federal court? I suspect they got a hell of a lot of info.

The court system is not limited to "mere criminality". It has successfully tried and convicted a number of terrorists.

Why do people have a problem with the rule of law?

Plea bargain? He was ready to kill himself for his fanatical beliefs. you think he cares about a plea bargain.

Military tribunals are within the law. They allow for terrorists to be tried, while maintaining the secrecy needed in this intelligence war.

 

[Liability]

Dude, he's got a lawyer now. Do you imagine that any freaking lawyer is going to permit his client to freely discuss such things with the very government that is prosecuting his client -- unless there is some serious consideration being given in exchange, like a limited prison term, etc? In other words, even if the guy IS now talking, it's only because we had to give up something. We shouldn't have to give up a single thing. Se should be extracting that information without so much as a passing thought about "Miranda" or lawyers or quid pro quos.

It's "dudette".

Aside from that, I thinhk any freaking lawyer's heard of "plea bargain".

It's still mystifingly stupid. Terrorist caught. We want (arguably need, urgently) the information he has. But we deprive ourselves of the ability to GET that information from the terrorist by TELLING him, instead, that he has the right to remain silent....

This is what we get when we insist on accepting the mindless talking pointlesses of the modern American liberals. Terrorism is not mere criminality. But since the left has the reins, America refuses to heed the warning.

So I wonder how much time passed between when he was caught and interogated extensively and when it was decided he would be tried in a federal court? I suspect they got a hell of a lot of info.

The court system is not limited to "mere criminality". It has successfully tried and convicted a number of terrorists.

Why do people have a problem with the rule of law?

Plea bargain? He was ready to kill himself for his fanatical beliefs. you think he cares about a plea bargain.

Military tribunals are within the law. They allow for terrorists to be tried, while maintaining the secrecy needed in this intelligence war.

Libs do not get it.

They just don't.

 

[Annie]

It's "dudette".

Aside from that, I thinhk any freaking lawyer's heard of "plea bargain".



So I wonder how much time passed between when he was caught and interogated extensively and when it was decided he would be tried in a federal court? I suspect they got a hell of a lot of info.

The court system is not limited to "mere criminality". It has successfully tried and convicted a number of terrorists.

Why do people have a problem with the rule of law?

Plea bargain? He was ready to kill himself for his fanatical beliefs. you think he cares about a plea bargain.

Military tribunals are within the law. They allow for terrorists to be tried, while maintaining the secrecy needed in this intelligence war.

Libs do not get it.

They just don't.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Liability again.

 

[Coyote]

How do you know if national security was compromised or not?

I don't and neither do you. However I trust those in both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration and Congress to make sure that the groundwork would be laid so it would not be.

These are not stupid people and however much I may disagree with their policies or politics, I feel quite sure that they do not desire our country's demise.

I don't want transparency in a terrorist court case. The more information the terrorist and their lawyers have about methods used about intelligence agencies the stronger and more effective they become.

I don't mean transparency in that sense. I mean in the sense that justice is seen to be done and the rule of law followed.

If we get to the point were we decide that the law must no longer be followed and that everyone does not have a right to justice then what are we striving to protect? What are we fighting for? McDonalds and Coco Cola and our Ipods?

 

[CMike]

How do you know if national security was compromised or not?

I don't and neither do you. However I trust those in both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration and Congress to make sure that the groundwork would be laid so it would not be.

These are not stupid people and however much I may disagree with their policies or politics, I feel quite sure that they do not desire our country's demise.

I don't want transparency in a terrorist court case. The more information the terrorist and their lawyers have about methods used about intelligence agencies the stronger and more effective they become.

I don't mean transparency in that sense. I mean in the sense that justice is seen to be done and the rule of law followed.

If we get to the point were we decide that the law must no longer be followed and that everyone does not have a right to justice then what are we striving to protect? What are we fighting for? McDonalds and Coco Cola and our Ipods?

Unlawful combatants don't have rights.

The question isn't so much the underwear bomber because his crime was obvious.

Suppose based on intelligence information he was picked up in Yemen while plotting. How is a civilian court supposed to prove its case? It can't subpoena his buddies in Yemen. It can't disclose where they got the information, for the arrest since that source will then be compromised.

Civilian courts are geared for handling a crime after it has been committed, not for thwarting terrorist attacks on an on-going basis.

We are in an intelligence war. Information is critical. Almost any information revealed to terrorists or their lawyers involving sources, methods, practices, of getting intelligence, can than be used by terrorists to stop authorities from thwarting further terrorist attacks.

My main concern is the protection of ameican civilians from unlawful combatants such as Al Qaida. That is better handled in this case by a military tribunal than by civilian courts.

 

[Coyote]

Dude, he's got a lawyer now. Do you imagine that any freaking lawyer is going to permit his client to freely discuss such things with the very government that is prosecuting his client -- unless there is some serious consideration being given in exchange, like a limited prison term, etc? In other words, even if the guy IS now talking, it's only because we had to give up something. We shouldn't have to give up a single thing. Se should be extracting that information without so much as a passing thought about "Miranda" or lawyers or quid pro quos.

It's "dudette".

Aside from that, I thinhk any freaking lawyer's heard of "plea bargain".

It's still mystifingly stupid. Terrorist caught. We want (arguably need, urgently) the information he has. But we deprive ourselves of the ability to GET that information from the terrorist by TELLING him, instead, that he has the right to remain silent....

This is what we get when we insist on accepting the mindless talking pointlesses of the modern American liberals. Terrorism is not mere criminality. But since the left has the reins, America refuses to heed the warning.

So I wonder how much time passed between when he was caught and interogated extensively and when it was decided he would be tried in a federal court? I suspect they got a hell of a lot of info.

The court system is not limited to "mere criminality". It has successfully tried and convicted a number of terrorists.

Why do people have a problem with the rule of law?

Yeah. Your gender just jumps off the page.

And OF COURSE lawyers who pracitice in the realm of criminal law have heard of "plea bargaining." In fact, that's what I had just finished SAYING. And WHY the U.S. should even have to engage in such "plea bargaining" with a terrorist to get needed intel while we are at war is beyond a mystery. THAT'S exactly WHY it's a fucking huge mistake to conflate the concept of "terrorist" with the concept of a mere "criminal."

Why do YOU people insist on confusing the concept of properly dealing with terrorists in a time of war with a "legal" matter?

There ARE already ways to insure that the "suspected" terrorist (you know, the one with the self immolated underpants) get's some opportunity to challenge his detention. They are known as military tribunals or military commissions. They have historically worked quite well. What we should cetainly NOT be doing is inserting this shit into our domestic civilian criminal justice system.

Again - the civilian criminal justice system has apparently worked very well in the cases it has handled - can you show me an instance where it has failed? Why exactly do you think it would NOT work well in this particular case? This one isn't even a hardened Al Queda operative - just some dumb shit convinced that exploding underwear was the way to his heart's desire. He started talking as soon as he was captured.

 

[Coyote]

Plea bargain? He was ready to kill himself for his fanatical beliefs. you think he cares about a plea bargain.

Yup. He started confessing as soon as he was captured.

Military tribunals are within the law. They allow for terrorists to be tried, while maintaining the secrecy needed in this intelligence war.

That's debatable and has been debated in the Supreme Court. The latest incarnation seems workable and certainly some of the detainees are going to be tried under that system. Why do all need to be? Of the cases brought before the tribunal, two were dismissed without prejudice because the tribunal believed that the men charged had not been properly determined to be persons within the commission's jurisdiction. That may well be the case here to. It's quite possible a conviction would be more likely in a civilian court.

Like I said - the civilian courts have appeared to have done an excellent job iin the cases brought before them. I don't understand why you would continue to insist that all terrorist cases be handled in a military tribunal. That may not be appropriate.

 

[Liability]

It's "dudette".

Aside from that, I thinhk any freaking lawyer's heard of "plea bargain".



So I wonder how much time passed between when he was caught and interogated extensively and when it was decided he would be tried in a federal court? I suspect they got a hell of a lot of info.

The court system is not limited to "mere criminality". It has successfully tried and convicted a number of terrorists.

Why do people have a problem with the rule of law?

Yeah. Your gender just jumps off the page.

And OF COURSE lawyers who pracitice in the realm of criminal law have heard of "plea bargaining." In fact, that's what I had just finished SAYING. And WHY the U.S. should even have to engage in such "plea bargaining" with a terrorist to get needed intel while we are at war is beyond a mystery. THAT'S exactly WHY it's a fucking huge mistake to conflate the concept of "terrorist" with the concept of a mere "criminal."

Why do YOU people insist on confusing the concept of properly dealing with terrorists in a time of war with a "legal" matter?

There ARE already ways to insure that the "suspected" terrorist (you know, the one with the self immolated underpants) get's some opportunity to challenge his detention. They are known as military tribunals or military commissions. They have historically worked quite well. What we should cetainly NOT be doing is inserting this shit into our domestic civilian criminal justice system.

Again - the civilian criminal justice system has apparently worked very well in the cases it has handled - can you show me an instance where it has failed? Why exactly do you think it would NOT work well in this particular case? This one isn't even a hardened Al Queda operative - just some dumb shit convinced that exploding underwear was the way to his heart's desire. He started talking as soon as he was captured.

I am not interested in your uninformed and irrelevant opinions about "how well" the civilian criminal justice system has worked. I don't even know what that means. It "works" if there's a conviction? It has failed if there's an acquittal? Jeez, that's stupid.

I AM concerned with the FACT that when a person is charged with a crime in the civilian criminal Justice system here in the U.S.A., that person is automatically insulated. He is TOLD that he has a by-God RIGHT to remain silent. And right at that instant the conclusion becomes inescapable. It is a seriously stupid and easily avoided MISTAKE to confuse a captured illegal enemy combatant with a mere criminal.

Criminals commit crimes. Vile and hideous crimes, sometimes, but JUST crimes, nonetheless.

Illegal enemy combatants -- in this case, terrorists -- do not JUST commit "crimes." They commit ACTS of WAR.

I WANT all people charged with mere crimes to get their Constitutional right to remain silent.

I do NOT WANT captured illegal enemy combatants -- terrorists -- to even THINK we will tolerate their refusal to give up the information we demand from their captured mouths.

Yes, LOTS of folks talk when they are first arrested before they lawyer up. But the information we might need from the underpants bomber is likely to include much more in the way of DETAILS on minor points than can be obtained from an arrested criminal suspect prior to his arraignment. (There are time constraints. Suspects must get to court promptly.) And once the right to counsel is invoked, or once it attaches by operation of law, a suspect may not be questioned outside the presence of his lawyer.

It gets a LOT more complicated from there. What if the lawyer advises the underpants bomber that the U.S. prosecutor isn't promising him enough in exchange for sharing information? The lawyer would, at the juncture, probably advise his client NOT to speak anymore to the "government." That is a really bad outcome when we need to know what the fucker knows.

Suppose the stupid motherfucker wants to go to trial? In the case of the underpants bomber, it appears that the government DID have his name and some intel about him before he even was permitted to take that flight. So, the lawyer will probably insist on GETTING that to review in preparation for the trial. The government might just wish to decline to share OUR intel with a terrorist. But the Court might then have to tell the government, "Pick your poison. You don't have to give him state secrets, but then you cannot prosecute him. OR, if you really want to proceed with this prosecution, then you HAVE to give him his discovery material." Why on EARTH would we want to put ourselves in THAT stupid position when there's no real need to go there? Military tribunal time.

The President said we are at war and he said it in the context of this very terrorist attack attempt. So, why on EARTH are we doing this crap to ourselves?