Nothing else to say but “cowards”:
In a major reversal, the Obama administration has decided to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for his role in the attacks of Sept. 11 before a military commission at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and not in a civilian courtroom.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is expected to announce on Monday afternoon that Mr. Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the attacks, and four other accused conspirators will face charges before a panel of military officers, a law enforcement official said. The Justice Department has scheduled a press conference for 2 p.m. Eastern time.
Mr. Holder, who had wanted to prosecute Mr. Mohammed before a regular civilian court in New York City, changed his mind after Congress imposed a series of restrictions barring the transfer of Guantánamo detainees into the United States, making such a trial impossible for now, the official said.
And no, I’m not talking about Obama and Holder. I’m talking about the clowns in Congress who apparently don’t have enough faith in this nation and who are so afraid of one man that they have to try him in secret in another country.
aimai
Wish they’d threaten to broadcast the entire trial anyway, regardless of location and type of trial. Or throw it open to full media coverage. There ought to be some price to pay for Congress for having been such fucking pusillanimous cowards.
aimai
mapaghimagsik
Oddly, or national elite are a nation of WATBs. Color me surprised.
Joey Maloney
It’s not the clowns in Congress who are afraid. That’s the clowns who vote for them. The Congressional clowns are just so hungry for power that they don’t care how much damage they do to the country in pursuit of it.
Carnacki
The same people who agreed to warrantless wiretapping and email reads and retroactively made crimes into not crimes are not people who will ever care about the rule of law.
MobiusKlein
So, let me get this straight- Congress has the convictions to prevent a trial by all sorts of shenanigans, but can’t get off it’s ass to vote if a war is good or bad?
I really don’t understand the world anymore.
danimal
Conservatives do not believe that our judiciary is sufficient. They do not believe our courts can produce justice. They believe our judges are unable to make appropriate decisions. They do not believe in the United States Constitution.
Just Some Fuckhead
I’m contesting a speeding ticket. I may try to get the venue moved to Cuba where fines are only about $10.
Rob Wolfe
Shouldn’t it be possible to have a federal district court set up shop at Gitmo? What would be the situation if there was a federal crime in Guam? Could an argument have been made that they were similar?
IANAL so I have no clue but it just jumped into my head as a way around the gutless wonders.
El Tiburon
They are all cowards, worthless and weak. Including and especially Obama.
It is amazing the ease in which we can fly our way into another war yet can’t fly a human being to our shores from Cuba.
JPL
The same clowns who are against civilian trials preach the constitution. Remember the stunt when they read it on the floor and even flubbed that up.
Felonious Wench
I do not understand the dread fear over men that eat, shit, and breathe the same as the rest of us do. It’s embarrassing to our country.
MobiusKlein
@Rob Wolfe: A federal court paid for by what funding? I think that Congress has axed out funding for trials, or some such too. Or could if they tried. But running a court there costs $, so it’s got to be budgeted.
joe from Lowell
It always bears repeating, some of the most murderous, dangerous terrorists in history have been tried in our federal courts and are rotting away in our federal prisons.
James E Powell
@danimal:
Conservatives do not believe in due process of law except to protect the property and privileges of the ruling class.
If it were up to conservatives, every amendment except the second would be removed from the Bill of Rights.
Calouste
The Nazis tried the people they accused of starting the Reichtags fire in a civil court. All but one got acquited. The US is determined not to repeat that mistake.
4tehlulz
The vote to deny funds to close Guantanamo was so close. If Obama used his bully pulpit, he could have changed the minds of 40 senators.
joe from Lowell
@danimal:
No, they do not, but let’s remember: on this particular question, people like Bernie Sanders and Barbara Mikulski were right there with the conservatives.
MikeJ
@danimal:
I tend to agree with them on that, but for entirely different reasons. I have no doubt any muslim anywhere in the US will be convicted of anything you charge him with.
Calouste
@Felonious Wench:
Half a century of superhero and action movies have the population indoctrinated that there are villains with powers beyond the ordinary human.
Rob Wolfe
@mobiusklein it is my understanding that federal courts are already funded. Besides that, the restriction is to prevent removal from Gitmo. The law talks about transferring people TO the US, doesn’t say anything about transferring the court to Gitmo.
And no, this isn’t a totally serious suggestion. It would just be lovely if it was possible. I always have a fondness for using literal readings of something against the kind of gutless fools as passed this bill.
Paul W.
Couldn’t agree more, this was one of the most nonsensical decisions by the Democrats in the last two years. If they had just defended the President’s decision instead of wetting their beds at the thought of “terrorists” in their “backyards”… who knows? We be a nation of laws again, and for the near future until America elects another one of these retards.
joe from Lowell
Heck of a decision the gutless wonders left for Holder and Obama: do you try the accused in military courts, or do you continue to hold them indefinitely in the hope that you’ll someday be allowed to give them civilian trials?
Maude
The fear of testimony in open court is a good part of the reason Congress doesn’t want civilian trials of the detainees.
The only question is how many members of Congress were compliant with the Bush Administration’s war crimes.
The members of Congress are afraid for themselves.
Edit: the usual spelling error.
Chet
@Joey Maloney: This. We get the government we deserve, and more’s the pity.
Bob Loblaw
You can’t fight a global war on terror without a false existential crisis. Eventually the public would see through the scam. And it is a mighty profitable scam.
Cris
I would post a “bully pulpit” comment but I just can’t muster the enthusiasm to snark.
Brachiator
Fear wins out.
The GOP will no doubt celebrate their “victory.”
This is a sad day.
James E Powell
@Bob Loblaw:
I think you nailed it. It is similar to the way the Mafia is portrayed in films contrasted with the testimony and evidence at trials of real Mafioso.
p.a.
Newsflash: Sully likes Ryan’s ‘debt-reduction’ plan, especially the termination of Medicare, because it’s- wait for it-
SERIOUS.
maye
I thought they didn’t want public trials because the defendants were tortured, and (a) they don’t want to go there, and (b) in a civil court, evidence obtained through torture would be thrown out.
piratedan
nothing like armchair bravery, these guys have it down pat.
joe from Lowell
@maye: Evidence obtained through torture will be thrown out in the military trials, too.
IANAL, but AFAICT, the only important evidentiary difference between federal criminal trials and these military trials is that the latter have looser rules about admitting hearsay evidence.
Culture of Truth
More troubling than their fear of a superterrorist on the american mainland is the GOP’s concern that in a trial the person could be found not guilty on a legal technicality, so better to use another trial format where this is thought not be possible.
Chris
@danimal:
They’d tell you that they LOVE the Constitution, they just don’t trust the activist judges who think the Constitution might mean something other than “Vote GOP! Now and for ever!”
Once again, I’m reminded of my other country (France), whose intelligence service managed to make a deal to acquire Carlos the Jackal (the closest thing to an Osama Bin Laden that the 1970s/80s had), tried him in a civilian court for the murder of French citizens, found him guilty, and has had him locked up in a French prison ever since. Oddly, no one in France worries about him pulling a Magneto and breaking out.
(And it’s not like France had any shortage of left-wing believers in its judicial system at the time).
Calouste
@p.a.:
What’s new about that?
piratedan
@p.a.: so is a gunshot wound to the head, but I don’t recommend those either
wenchacha
I keep reminding myself that when Obama won, he was inheriting a shitload of horrendous problems, and that it would be an impossible job to deal with all of them.
Then he took office and even more stupendously awful stuff happened, boggling my mind. In truth, I forget all the terrible forebodings that I had for his administration.
I have no idea if the questionable policies he has pursued are a direct result of all the crapulence he took on when he was sworn in. I’d like to believe so. There are days when I am able to do so. And there are days when I can’t believe that things have continued on a deep downward slide and I wonder if we can ever recover as a nation.
McCain/Palin would indeed have been a calamity. Worse than my worst nightmares, I think. But all this right now sucks pretty damn hard, too.
Dammit.
If I were such a believer, Rapture would sound awfully good about now.
MikeJ
@Culture of Truth:
Legal technicalities are also what many of us just call “the law”. For every “technicality” or “loophole” there is a specific reason why the law was written the way it was. Usually if the law favours the defendant, it’s because that’s the only way to punish prosecutors and cops.
Just Some Fuckhead
@wenchacha:
A little bit of hopeful news: First comes the Trump, then the Rapture.
geg6
@joe from Lowell:
Hell, some of them are sitting right there on the floor of Congress.
Joe Beese
@4tehlulz:
The First Law of Obotics:
Zifnab
@aimai: This.
A trial to rival the OJ case in media attention. The opportunity of a life-time to prove the American Justice System is both fair and effective. And we’re going to piss it down the drain because ZOMG, TEH TEARORITS!
Democrats should have taken this to the hole over and over again. Bust out the patriot flags. Start cheer leading our justice department. Pound that “American Exceptionalism” drum. Bring it home with a big old copy of the Constitution stapled to the court room wall.
This case could have been about everything the Tea Party pretends to care for. Limited government. Fiscal responsibility. America First, Strongest, Best. Anti-Terrorism. Following the US Constitution to the punctuation marks.
The Dems could have been swinging this sack of hammers at every Republican on the floor of the House. Instead? Nothin’.
Zifnab
@Joe Beese:
Shorter Joe Bease:
“Damn your facts! I have my pithy rejoiner!”
And you could have least gone with the Third Law of (R)obotics, as other than rhyming this doesn’t in any way resemble “Harm no Humans”.
Get your Asamov straight.
geg6
@Joe Beese:
This might just be the stupidest comment you’ve ever posted.
So congratulations. That was some bar you had to leap over.
Resident Firebagger
Ya, poor Obama. Except for starting wars and hammering out massive tax giveaways to the wealthy, he’s really powerless to do anything…
benintn
Thank you for clarifying. I agree – Holder and Obama tried for 2 years to get this resolved and to use civilian courts. It’s obvious that the GOP has too many secrets, too much fear, and too much to hide.
MobiusKlein
@wenchacha: Rapture Already Happened.
Sad thing is, nobody noticed because so few people were taken.
benintn
@Joe Beese:
The first rule of Joe Beese:
I crap bigger than you.
Splitting Image
@James E Powell:
They wouldn’t even leave that one standing. The teabaggers’ faith in the Galtian overlords on this issue is yet another example of their stupidity.
The second amendment was put in the Bill of Rights (as I understand it) to counter the ancien regime custom of allowing nobles but not commoners to carry a weapon whenever they liked. The founders were faced with the dilemma of having to allow either everyone or no one to own and carry weapons, and as they wrote right into the amendment, due to the necessity of keeping active militias, it had to be everyone.
If the goal is to bring back the ancien regime, there isn’t a single part of Galtian privilege they won’t bring back with it.
Joe Beese
@benintn:
Change You Can Believe In*
* If The Republicans Let Me
Kay
@benintn:
It’s also (become) obvious that some number of Democrats in Congress were implicated or complicit in Bush-era abuses.
I really don’t see how we avoid that conclusion, since this cover-up effort has been going on since 2006.
joe from Lowell
@Zifnab:
Srsly. In the face of an argument that rests on evidence, his response is to write a platitude that utterly ignores any evidence in order to accuse his opponents of not using evidence.
Projection: not just for the AV club anymore.
Zifnab
@Kay:
It’s the false Republican/Democrat dichotomy. You had pro-Bush Congressmen and anti-Bush Congressmen. The parties just corralled the votes.
4tehlulz
0/10 Joe.
kay
@Zifnab:
I think it’s fair to say some of them were briefed. They either endorsed the actions or didn’t object.
I also don’t understand why people who object to the expansion of executive power expect the executive to hand it over. I think this will probably work better if we call on Congress to take it back. Screaming at the person with the power to voluntarily hand it over to people who clearly don’t want it strikes me as silly and futile.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@joe from Lowell:
As a registered commenter at the AV Club, I feel it is my duty to protest any comparison between Joe Beese and myself and/or my compatriots at the AV Club. Please cease and desist.
kdaug
@Zifnab:
Surely you mean the Ten Commandments?
joe from Lowell
Oh, look, revolutionary socialists don’t like democratically-elected legislatures being able to check executive decisions, and they don’t like it when the executive accepts their authority.
There’s no way Kim Jong Il would put up with that crap.
Zach
Exactly. Obama & Holder did everything possible to push for (1) closing GTMO and (2) civilian trials. Earned a ton of political bad blood from other people exploiting their efforts. It is worth recognizing someone like Dick Durbin who’s been on the right side of this just as much as the administration from the beginning and fighting from inside of Congress.
Calouste
@Splitting Image:
One could of course argue that once the United States had a standing army, there was no longer a necessity for standing militias and thus the Second Amendment ceased to have value.
Pamela F
@danimal: comment #6:
Elia Isquire
I dunno whether to be more annoyed with the Congress or the American people, honestly.
Elizabelle
I was glad to see this decision.
Now to watch some heads explode.
A L
Why the hell did you take Holder and Obama off the hook, Cole.
OzoneR
@El Tiburon:
yes, well, doing the right thing, only to get New York City and Congress to come down on him like a ton of bricks, tie his hands, and force him into a decision the Attorney General made it clear he DID NOT want to make definitely makes you a coward.
It was a stupid decision to try a civilian trial in this fascist paradise in first place.
the fenian
Why did we elect such a helpless man? I feel his pain.
kdaug
@Calouste:
Ding. And by my reading, there were few things the founders agreed on more than their disdain for a standing army.
“Enemy’s a-comin’? Grab your guns, boys, it’s time to go fight!” vs. “Let’s spend ~25% of GDP to maintain bases around the world and start wars on a whim”.
Ike warned us. So did the founders.
But there’s money to be made, folks, money to be made.
A L
@the fenian: He’s not helpless. He’s doing exactly what he wants to do.
MobiusKlein
@A L: hey, no fair playing sockpuppet in here without inviting us all.
Morbo
Damn, I missed the comment over/under by 4 1/2 and got the commenter wrong to boot.
Joe Beese
Speaking of “afraid of one man”, why is Obama so terrified of Bradley Manning that he subjects him to psychological torture?
Unless fear isn’t the issue and he’s just doing because it gives him a tingle to torture people.
4jkb4ia
Stone disgusted with the whole lot of them. The only bright side is that to try KSM in a military commission they may be shamed into making it a proceeding that has some kind of procedural legitimacy.
Svensker
@Zifnab:
Every single Dem senator voted against closing Gitmo, except Ted Kennedy, who was either dying or dead. Even fucking Feingold.
Cowards all.
Pamela F
@danimal: comment #6:
The right only believes in the judiciary if they can hand pick every single person.
I’m offended at all the democrats who were too skeered to vote for the funding of Guantanamo and civil trials.
I’m offended that 62 senators sent a letter to to the president decrying his lack of leadership on the budget when he submitted his budget.
I’m offended at all the liberal senators who kissed AIPAC’s ass instead of backing the president wshen he objected to settlements.
I object to the mealy mouthed reps who went ballistic when the president (after campaigning for the repeal of the Upper Bush Tax Cuts) had the audacity to dis him when they hadn’t the courage to vote before the midterms.
I object to the Sole Patrol and its hairy white allies that cater to corporate media and book sales instead of working in the trenches. So much for “Crashing the Gates”: the jokes on us.
Most of all, I object to the fact the a democratic president president launched his re-election campaign and a “liberal” blog doesn’t only fail to notice but fails to start organizing against the proto-fascists. Just take a look at the republican governors in the midwest, FL, and Arizona and tell me why I have a stinking feeling that too many here play “Let’s Blog” with 0 clue about either priorities or consequences.
OzoneR
@Zifnab:
with whose support? Glenn Greenwald?
malloy
Calouste, I really liked the supervillain comment. It reminded me that when this first came up, a commenter wrote “KSM is not Magneto!” Still makes me laugh.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Joe Beese:
Time for you, seeing as you’re acting as the prosecutor here, to prove that:
1).Obama is terrified of Manning, and
2).That Manning is being tortured in any way. With proof, not hearsay evidence.
Ash Can
Firebaggers — because somehow, someway, Obama is to blame for EVERYTHING.
Jax6655
@Pamela F:
This. Every single word.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
.
.
Oh no, of course not. As President Obama and Attorney General Holder heroically believe, sometimes you can’t feed the public the whole latrine, so you’ll have to eat a shit sandwich.
.
.
Brachiator
@Pamela F:
Oh, yes. Oh, very yes.
BDeevDad
They’ve just taken George Bush’s next step and changed fight
to try.
Mnemosyne
@OzoneR:
Didn’t you know? If Obama had really wanted it to happen, it would have. The fact that he failed proves not only that he didn’t want it enough, but that he actually wanted the opposite and cleverly maneuvered his opponents into doing what he wanted. Therefore the 90-6 vote in the Senate was the result that Obama wanted all along, because if he had wanted a different outcome, the outcome would have been different.
IOW, Joe Beese read The Secret and actually thinks that it works.
(Updated with link)
joe from Lowell
@Mnemosyne: I find that people who believe that the president can and should just roll right over Congress in order to get what he wants have very important things to say about questions of civil liberties and executive power.
A L
@Mnemosyne: Ah ha! The best way to get this guy tried in New York is to try him in Gauntanamo Bay! Clearly Obama is trying to do the right thing
Poorly conceived and executed. Mnemosyne you are dare I say even more inept than ABL.
JohnR
I don’t see what all the fuss is about. He’s getting a show trial before the verdict is announced. You don’t see fair play like that in any dictatorship, nosirree, Bob!
As for the President, I have to say that David Broder himself could hardly have made a fairer and more bipartisan Chief Executive. Greater praise than that I cannot give.
joe from Lowell
I find that people who manage not to even be aware of the actions taken by Congress in their efforts to limit the President’s discretion have a lot useful things to say about the intentions behind the President’s actions.
A L
@joe from Lowell: Hey smart guy, if Obama wants to try KSM in New York, how does deciding to try him in Guantanamo Bay advance that goal.
Side question: How old are you?
Nellcote
Considering that the record of successful prosecutions of militay tribunals vs civilian courts is very poor, it would be hilarious if he was acquited in a military tribunal.
OzoneR
@A L:
The best way to get him tried in New York is to announce he’s being tried in New York and work with the mayor and local officials in New York to create a plan for security and costs. That was done. THEN New York officials, Republican, Democrat, Conservative and Liberal, told the White House to shove it. So now one genius?
joe from Lowell
@A L:
facepalm
Go back, do some Googling on “Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Obama, trial, Congress,” and get back to us.
And I’m old enough to have absolutely no patience when it comes to suffering fools gladly.
A L
@OzoneR: So basically the Pontius Pilate defense. “I want to do the right thing but I can’t. Therefore, I will do the wrong thing. I cannot be held accountable for my decision.”
I think all that’s left now in the Obamatar repetoire is the Nuremberg defense.
FlipYrWhig
@A L: Hey smart guy, is there a difference between _wanting_ to do something and _being able_ to do it?
joe from Lowell
@OzoneR:
Why, whine, of course.
Exactly the same thing AL would do if Obama continued to hold KSM without trial in the hope of someday getting the all-clear to try him in federal court.
OzoneR
@A L:
It doesn’t. He lost that battle.
Of course he could just hold them indefinitely until Congress gives him the OK and New York City decides to allow it to happen. That should happen soon, right?
joe from Lowell
@A L:
Where “the wrong thing” is defined as “provide the accused with a trial instead of holding him without trial.”
Damn that Obama, always wanting to try accused criminals in front of a court!
A L
@FlipYrWhig: Of course there’s a difference but try telling that to a judge.
“Sorry your honor, I didn’t want my buddies to break into that guy’s house and steal his stuff, but they vetoed me so I had to go along with them.”
joe from Lowell
It must be nice to live in a world where one’s options are never limited by others.
joe from Lowell
@A L: Providing accused criminals with the best trial venue available is like breaking into a house.
Got it.
A L
@joe from Lowell: I see you’re young enough to believe whatever the president tells you, i.e. you think KSM is getting a fair trial anywhere (much less on a military base in Cuba where the media will not be granted access).
@OzoneR: He didn’t “lose the battle.” If he really wanted to he could just keep KSM where he is until he could secure a fair trial. Or he could let KSM go.
Instead he’s going to have him tortured, “tried” and executed for nothing. What a tragedy (for Obama).
FlipYrWhig
@A L: IANAL but I think you’ll find that statements like that might not exonerate you fully but often lead to lighter sentences.
General Stuck
@Pamela F:
Telling, isn’t it? It won’t be mentioned until Greenwald gives the green light to the Borg Collective, and that doesn’t seem likely anytime soon.
A L
@joe from Lowell: Military base with no media access, tried by hand-picked military men in a foregone conclusion.
This is the “best” trial venue in the mind of a literal 11-year-old.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@A L:
Try explaining that to the House when they’re voting to impeach the President on charges that he aided and abetted an enemy by letting him go.
And watch as absolutely nothing else gets done in Congress….
OzoneR
@A L:
LMFAO. Sure, lets hold him indefinitely.
So you’re solution is to just let him go? Let him go free because we can guarantee a “fair trial?”
It baffles me why liberals don’t win national security arguments more often.
FlipYrWhig
@A L:
So… it would be better to keep a terror suspect imprisoned indefinitely without charges? That’s precisely the problem. You can either do a military not-quite-trial soon, or keep waiting for a civilian trial, something that has very little prospect of ever happening. Both make a hash of civil liberties. Which is more offensive to the conscience?
Ash Can
Fuckin’ federal law, how does it work??
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@A L:
This describes every military base. Castro could allow media to get up to the fences as Guantanamo as much as local authorities in New Jersey could allow the media to get to the fence of Fort Dix.
joe from Lowell
@A L:
Actually, the history of Congress overriding Obama’s efforts to try KSM in federal court is well-established, but don’t bother educating yourself or anything.
Since you think the question of whether KSM should be tried in federal court vs. a military court is irrelevant, what pray tell are you whining about?
Oh, right: you’re just taking cheap shots at Obama without regard to the facts or even your own expressed beliefs.
You’ll forgive me if the legal and moral protestations of someone who explicitly endorses indefinite detention without trial don’t cause me to miss any sleep at night.
You’re a fucking liar.
OzoneR
@A L:
as is a civilian trial of a Islamic man who openly admitted to wanting to kill Americans with a jury of New Yorkers three blocks from the site of the crime. You think that trial would be any fairer?
If Obama really wanted to give this guy a fair trial, he’d done it in Berkley, California or Dearborn, Michigan.
Mike Lamb
@A L: It’s preferable to hold the guy indefinitely? I have a lot of trouble believing that if Obama/Holder had stated “We are continuing with an indefinite detention until Congress reconsiders”, you wouldn’t be posting some bullshit like “The best way to get this guy tried in New York is to [hold him indefinitely] in Gauntanamo Bay! Clearly Obama is trying to do the right thing”.
joe from Lowell
@A L:
…or in a country in which the federal courts have been refused as a venue.
You know, like this one.
JenJen
@geg6: Cosigned.
A L
@OzoneR: Yes. Normally when the police arrest someone and then torture them to extract a confession, the trial is thrown out and the suspect is let go. You see that’s designed to prevent the government from doing that because if we allowed the government to do that we would be barbarians.
Yes, the correct answer is to let KSM go. The fun thing is that Obama wouldn’t even be at fault in the first place since his administration didn’t arrest/torture him, but of course Obama is mysteriously constrained from doing that because he has political capital to secure…
4tehlulz
That’s a cheap shot worthy of The Corner.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@A L:
True if evidence was gained via that torture. If the evidence is gained before or independent of any torture, you get two trials: One for the original detainee, a second for the torturer.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@4tehlulz:
I think he’d get convicted in Dearborn.
Mike Lamb
@A L: Or maybe there might be evidence derived independently from torture that would sustain a guilty verdict?
A L
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again): No. As far as anyone can tell, all the evidence being used against KSM was extracted via torture.
If there is a cabinet labeled “EVIDENCE AGAINST KSM NOT OBTAINED THRU TORTURE,” nobody is telling. Absent that, he must be let go.
OzoneR
@A L:
Why don’t you try explaining that to people, because for some of us, it hasn’t changed their opinion.
Oh yeah I’m sure he’ll win a lot of points with that argument.
Welcome to democracy. Bitch, ain’t it?
A L
@Mike Lamb: Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t. Chances are, though, that if they felt the need to torture him to extract the evidence they needed, then they had nothing on him, which would be hilarious because there is evidence that he was involved in prior terror attacks but he’s not being charged for those.
Simply put, if KSL was a two-bit crook and his prosecution was handled like this, nobody would bat an eye at him being released.
A L
@OzoneR: It is a bitch. So sorry you want to toss it out because following it would be embarrassing to your favorite politician. Obama is the real victim in all this, can’t you see?
singfoom
Rule of law, schmule of schlaw. We shouldn’t treat terrorists any differently than any other criminal. To do otherwise betrays this country’s great ideal of the rule of law.
Yes, Congress has blocked Obama from doing so. I get this. Also, I know it is unpopular, but I firmly believe if we cannot convict someone in a normal, federal courtroom that they should be set free, even if they are committed to causing us harm.
Call it naive and call me names, but that’s the only way through this situation that lives up to the ideals that AFAIK undergird our nation.
There’s NOTHING American about indefinite detention without a real trial.
General Stuck
What a dumb hill to die on. The senators and congresscritter dems that voted to block these trials on US soil were voting for what the overwhelming percent of Americans wanted. There are times when complexities of an issue and an uninformed public on those complexities is relevant for elected officials to vote against. This is not one of them. It is simple and straightforward, US citizens don’t want these trials in federal courts. I think that sucks and would prefer the majority of my fellow citizens felt differently, but they don’t, and it shouldn’t be expected for those dem members of congress to commit political suicide by letting it happen.
Obama was risking backlash, but tried anyway, and there is a perfectly good alternative to trying these folks by military commission that is in step with and good faith with the core principles of jurisprudence in our constitution. The Supremes have already ruled on this and I doubt Obama will set up the kangaroo courts Bush was trying to slip by. Evidence tainted by torture will be verboten, along with any other unconstitutional procedures. obama is not going to violate the rulings by the SCOTUS in this matter.
So why did we, the left, want to have these cases tried in civilian courts. A rebuke to Bushisn notions of war versus police actions? Or just a broad smackdown retro to the still raging BDS that afflicts the left that began in 2002, or 03? You decide. I am not going to get my knickers in a twist over this situation. I am going to concentrate on beating republicans on what they are doing to the country today, which of course, always includes my uncool support of the reelection of the current dem president, that is directly related to other dems in other federal office getting elected instead of republicans. Fellating Obama? Only a fool would think so. But that is just my opinion.
Be Pony Free
Joe Beese
When J-Low bleats about those mean old Congresscritters “limiting the President’s discretion”, he conveniently omits the fact that Obama has unlimited discretion. He can, at any time, issue Mohammed one of those “full, free, and absolute” pardons that we gave Nixon. No finding of criminal activity is required.
Of course, that’s not a “serious” proposal because… gasp! … it might cost him re-election. And if the next President is a Republican, they might start a new war in the Middle East or pursue the looting of the middle class or something.
Corner Stone
I never knew rule of law was determined by an American Idol voting line.
FlipYrWhig
@General Stuck: It’s kind of like defending the Klan’s rights to free speech. It’s an argument that there are principles worth preserving even when the defendant is monstrous. I think it’s defensible. I just don’t think it’s where I’d put my own political foot down. I always thought that statement about not liking what you say but being willing to die to defend your right to say it was… hard to believe. No, you know, I’m _not_ actually willing to die so that the Klan can have free speech, even if I believe in free speech.
General Stuck
@General Stuck:
Although i will say, congress was chickenshit on placing such onerous rules on the secdef, forcing him to certify that released prisoners would not go back to fighting us with AQ. That is an impossible standard to meet, and needs to be dialed back.
FlipYrWhig
geg6, I think we have a new leader in the contest.
Maude
@General Stuck:
This.
Joe Beese
And with the administration asserting that it can wage war on Libya whether Congress approves or not, it’s far too late in the day of the imperial presidency to pretend that Obama would do Worthy Thing X if only Congress would let him.
Mnemosyne
@Joe Beese:
Yes, Nixon’s pardon has worked out so well for our country. Good thing Ford pardoned him, or who knows what kind of mess we would be in today!
FlipYrWhig
Maybe Obama should send the CIA into Guantanamo to abduct Mohammed, drop him off at a federal courthouse while federalizing the National Guard to provide security, and commence the world’s fairest terrorism trial.
Bob Loblaw
@4tehlulz:
New name. Same Nick.
Corner Stone
I’m not sure how anyone imagines any testimony at all will be allowed in.
“Well, your Honor, KSM told us about this great little hot dog stand he knew…then we tortured him a while and he confessed he was planning to use the hot dog cart to release smallpox.”
“Oh, then he previously mentioned the hot dog stand? It’s all admissible!”
singfoom
@Corner Stone: Yeah, the “a majority of Americans didn’t want terrorists tried in courts” argument falls really flat for me as well.
Who cares if our Idiocracy-level-stupid electorate wants something when it goes against the rule of law?
It’s fine to use an appeal to authority with the electorate, but when the electorate is ignorant of the law, how useful is their desires, especially when it’s tinged with fear and racism?
The law should stand on it’s own, away from popular opinion. Hmmm, I wonder if that’s why SCOTUS isn’t directly elected.
FlipYrWhig
@singfoom:
Well, OK, it _should_, but let’s not pretend like it really does that. That’s why criminal lawyers like to have sympathetic defendants. (BTW, if anyone here has never been on jury duty, it’s worth doing, if only to see how bizarre normal-seeming people’s decision-making processes really are.)
OzoneR
@Bob Loblaw:
Can someone please explain to me who this Nick is? I am NOT Nick. Why am I being accused of being some nut?
OzoneR
@singfoom:
Well it does, and the law (the courts) say military commissions are ok. We had this discussion when Congress approved and the courts allowed military commissions. The left said the law was wrong.
Just Some Fuckhead
I’d be willing to give a pass to our side for torturing suspects and using secret trials to convict them if I could test out the process on Stuck and see how good it makes me feel. I’m willing to accede the high ground here if it makes me smile at least once.
OzoneR
@A L:
No, following it would be doing what the idiot public wants, or do you not understand the definition of democracy.
General Stuck
@singfoom:
There are reasons to support trying these folks in civilian courts rather that by military commission, at this point in time. But those reasons are mostly political and properly constructed military commissions are perfectly within the “rule of law” in this country.
General Stuck
@Just Some Fuckhead:
But you’re an idiot!!
Just Some Fuckhead
@General Stuck: Is that a no?
General Stuck
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Dial me up for an answer
1-666-Fuc kyou
OzoneR
Another reason why your Congress decided to leave the DOJ to whither away on the vine
http://durbin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=d32978e3-a4db-478d-9984-cad8f85d42f2
AhabTRuler
@kdaug: Hey, to be fair, the citizen-soldier was a nice idea, but it was rendered worthless by the mass army, to say nothing of mechanization.
joe from Lowell
@A L:
Actually, that’s only if they tortured him to extract the confession that they used at trial, or information gathered because of that confession that was used to establish his guilt.
Don’t forget that KSM was 1) implicated in 9/11 through considerable evidence even before he was arrested, and 2) held and interrogated legally for several months before Cheney ordered him tortured. It appears, at least to me, that he wasn’t tortured for information related to the 9/11 plot – his interrogators reported that he was cooperating at the time of Cheney’s order – but to produce other information, probably related to the case for the Iraq War.
Though your point is probably more relevant for other detainees.
Just Some Fuckhead
We have ways of making you change your mind, Stuck.
singfoom
@General Stuck: I think that reasonable people can disagree on that point. You are correct in that legislation has been passed by our Congress that allows people to be tried by Military Comissions.
I however, find the idea of multiple avenues of the law instead of just normal courts goes against the spirit of the law.
I’m not going to fault the Obama administration to harshly on this one, as you’re right, it’s mostly political issues that have made it turn out the way it has.
We tortured people. Torturing people is against our laws as well as international laws. Those who were tortured should be released.
Just because those assholes in Congress passed the law doesn’t make it right and doesn’t make it go against everything I thought this country stood for.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
In case any of you wondered how America got assraped in Vietnam, bend over because here it comes again.
Skeery communist threat is now skeery moozlem threat.
Red Domino Theory is now Green Domino Theory, and My Lai and the Vietnam Kill Squads are now Gharani and the A-stan Kill Squad.
Since the mini-surge has failed, the exit strategy is apparently Operation Frequent Wind Part Deux.
Slow learners, non?
OzoneR
@A L:
Only if the evidence used in trial was gained via torture, these rules also exist in military courts.
There is abundant evidence against KSM not received through torture. That evidence that WAS received is really against others AND was more about potential attacks.
General Stuck
@Just Some Fuckhead:
OzoneR
@singfoom:
No, but it does make it legal.
joe from Lowell
@Joe Beese:
OK, let’s see what reason Joe Beese can come up with for why the president might not want to issue Khalid Sheik Mohammed a full and complete pardon:
Yes, that must be it. Plainly.
singfoom
@joe from Lowell: Given the secrecy surrounding our “Enemy Combatants”, I myself very skeptical about any timeline given to us by the authorities, be they of the D or R persuasion.
How can we know what information from KSM was tortured out of him and was not? What if he gave one answer to question A before torture and another answer to question A during torture?
Which piece of information should be used? Is either answer inadmissible?
FlipYrWhig
@Hermione Granger-Weasley: Maybe you’ll read an article from some random goofball and change your mind again, then harangue us about that for a few more weeks.
FlipYrWhig
@singfoom: I agree, it’s a trainwreck. Torture doesn’t yield usable information even when it produces information. Torturing KSM was gratuitous in the first place, just strategically speaking, let alone the horrific ethical implications. But Obama can’t un-shit that bed. So now what?
joe from Lowell
@General Stuck: You ask:
One good reason is this:
Do we actually know this? I’m not talking about torture, but that’s not the only question. I’m 99% certain that these defendants would receive fair trials in federal courts. I’m not 99% certain that these military commissions will be entirely up to snuff. I’m pretty confident they will. I certainly think they can be, but I’d be more confident on that score if we used the real courts. We know they work.
Now, we have to keep a close eye on these military trials and, at a minimum, go through a whole lot of grief and challenges, and maybe the military doesn’t end up crossing all the Ts and dotting all the Is.
That’s why I think it would be better to use the federal courts.
singfoom
@OzoneR: And at one time, slavery was legal. So I’ll keep pointing out these legal, yet unjust laws and how in my view they go against the founding ideals of our Republic.
Just Some Fuckhead
@FlipYrWhig:
That sounds like something I’d say. I like the cut of your jibe.
joe from Lowell
@Joe Beese:
This goes beyond “whether Congress approves.” Congress has already passed an explicit ban, a ban on funding, these trials.
singfoom
@FlipYrWhig: It’s politically unpopular, but the right thing to do is let go every single person we tortured. And when I say torture, I include waterboarding.
I understand that’s completely impossible in terms of current politics and it’ll never happen. It’s a stain on our nation and nothing other than a full release will ever clean the stain.
joe from Lowell
@Corner Stone:
There’s actually big file of evidence on KSM that predates even his arrest. There is also an extensive history of when and how he was interrogated, and what he said when, and most importantly, of the change to Cheney’s “enhanced interrogation methods” and when it took place.
Once again, I can’t believe everyone has forgotten this – it was a big deal when it came out. KSM was cooperating, the CIA was reporting that, and Cheney ordered him tortured because he wouldn’t say what they wanted him to say about Iraq.
OzoneR
@singfoom:
yes it was, and when it was, people owned slaves. That’s how laws work.
Is it wrong? Probably. But it’s legal and it’s the only option the DOJ has left besides letting KSM rot in prison without trial, which might actually be the better option.
joe from Lowell
@OzoneR:
…and then the courts agreed with “the left” on a number of questions, and the commissions were changed.
Hopefully, changed enough.
The question of whether these trials are constitutional doesn’t turn on whether they’re civil or military courts, but on how those courts operates.
General Stuck
@singfoom:
That is an honorable opinion to have. For political reasons, I want them to be tried in American court rooms, And I generally agree in the principle of I’d rather let 10 guilty men go free rather than convict one guilty one. I don’t think the fact that KSM was tortured is by itself reason to set him free, but evidence gained from that torture is verboten, like I said.
The violations of law from torture falls onto those who conducted it, and they should be held account, and maybe they will be in a second Obama term. It is a fine notion that justice should be blind to politics, but it rarely is, even in local courts. And a dem president trying the former republican president for crimes against humanity has all sorts of epic consequences, politically and socially, and even the stability of the republic. I hope there is some accounting in public of what happened, and there needs to be, lest it grant license to be repeated by the next sadist administration.
The problem is a spoiled, feckless and ignorant citizenry, by and large, so I don’t blame so much politicians representing those folks in a democracy. But then I don’t believe in heroes in politics, and don’t expect them to fall on their sword in the face of overwhelming public opposition to an issue.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@FlipYrWhig:
That is original.
I made that up my bigself.
The sharia freakouts now are the same as the communism freakouts in the Red Scare era of the 50s.
Only now its a Green Scare.
BOO-YAH
watch out stupid protestants.
shariah gonna get chu!
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@General Stuck: Oh bullshytt. Obama’s administration suppressed the Gharani massacre video, suppressed the Camp No suicides investigation, suppressed the Baghram Theater Detention Center pictures, and is currently trying furiously to suppress the rest of the 4000 A-stan Kill Squad pics and video.
I don’t believe any of it anymore.
joe from Lowell
@singfoom:
Again, by using the evidence obtained before the torture began. Evidence collected, interrogations, and confessions are reported and entered into the file as the case is built, and the actual files are built up along with the case.
If you’re talking about “before and during” actual torture sessions, it all gets thrown out. I doubt anything collected after the “enhanced interrogation” began could be entered at all. If you mean, before and after his treatment changed, then they use the statements he gave “No, we never had contact with Saddam” before they ordered him tortured, rather than “OK, I used to sell him sarin” that he said after water board # 182.
FlipYrWhig
@Hermione Granger-Weasley:
Everyone has said this for a decade. Get a new act.
OzoneR
@Hermione Granger-Weasley:
In light of the fact that two UN workers were beheaded like criminals in Tudor England because some douche in Florida publicly burned a Koran, I can’t possibly imagine why this administration wouldn’t want some of these things made public.
It’s probably because they love torture. Yep, that’s it.
joe from Lowell
@singfoom: Did the Nuremberg Military Tribunals violate the founding ideals of our republic?
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@General Stuck: oh, yeah, and the Obama adminstration tried to suppress the Wikileaks Iraq data release by fucking DDOSing the Wikileaks server.
Yeah, that is totally how I expect the leader of the Free World to act. Like some tinpot dictator of a banana republic.
General Stuck
@joe from Lowell:
The procedures for the commissions will be reviewable by US courts, and if meeting constitutional muster, then the verdicts will stand, and I don’t think the verdicts are reviewable by civilian courts, which I wish they were, but I may be wrong about that. The Military Commission Act, I think has some problems, but the trials won’t be in secret and the abominations that were Bush’s MCs, nor will torture evidence be allowed. But the SCOTUS, even most the wingnuts have been pretty emphatic about the MC’s allowing basic rules of jurisprudence to be adhered to. I don’t think the exact nature of Obama’s version of them is all public yet.
I would rather these cases be tried in civilian court, but part of the argument for military tribunals is because they are war related. I have never opposed calling what we are doing against AQ “a war”/ I just objected for Bush, and some with Obama flipping back and forth to illegal combatants not related to international standard of treating POW’s. I’ve always called for giving these folks POW status, unless specifically charged with war crimes. ie expressly targeting civilians, like with 9-11/
And there is a fairly huge dispute on whether US courts have jurisdiction on acts of violence not on US soil. Though clearly the 9-11 suspects certainly belong in federal courts, imo. But it is all fairly confusing otherwise.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@OzoneR: oh I’m sure Obama has his reasons.
And hes great on domestic shit. But the rest of the world can piss up a rope as far as America is concerned.
We deserve exactly what is going to happen to us.
Because we are trash.
General Stuck
@Hermione Granger-Weasley:
CLOWN PIE
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@FlipYrWhig: Heres my new meme. It is not conservatism that is memetic selection for stupid…..it is protestantism.
;)
fasteddie9318
@joe from Lowell: Does “why” matter in this discussion? Nuremberg was a compromise developed in response to the fact that Stalin wanted to line up the top 50,000 or so remaining Nazis against a wall and shoot them, summarily. This tribunal, depending on who you talk to, is being done either because we’re too piss-pants scared to let a high-ranking terrorist into the country or because we want to make sure that evidence obtained by torture is still admissible. Neither is an acceptable justification, in my opinion.
joe from Lowell
@General Stuck:
See, that’s good, because replicating the federal criminal courts is not what the United States Army does for a living.
Stupid, cowardly Congress. You watch, we’re going to get at least one grand clusterfuck out of this, that we could have avoided entirely if we’d let the real court system do their job.
joe from Lowell
@fasteddie9318: I don’t want these detainees tried in military courts, either. I think they should be tried in federal court.
I’m not arguing that they’re a good idea. I’m just disputing some of the overheated nonsense people are saying about them.
OzoneR
@fasteddie9318:
Pretty sure if you polled the American people on KSM, a good number, perhaps a majority, would echo Stalin on this.
joe from Lowell
@fasteddie9318: BTW, this:
I can understand why people’s minds would go there, but evidence obtained through torture is not allowed in these tribunals.
Bob Loblaw
I can’t help but notice that joe from Lowell has declared himself an expert on the government’s case that hasn’t even been brought to trial yet. Ye gods, does this man’s intellect know no bounds?! Why was the FBI not banging down your door to assist them?! We are not worthy.
You are the biggest fucking poseur.
General Stuck
@joe from Lowell:
And if there weren’t other evidence besides that tainted by torture, Holder would have never proposed trying them in federal courts in the first place. But it bears watching these commissions closely, that they don’t get lax on this bedrock principle. I don’t think they will and will follow directions of the chain of command ending or beginning with the CiC.
singfoom
@joe from Lowell: Not in my view, as it was members of standing armies being prosecuted by the victors of that conflict.
It’s not the Military Commissions themselves I find repugnant. They are not in and of themselves bad.
From everything I’ve read, my mind goes to the idea that these are being used because they are the best chance of getting a guilty verdict, where federal courts might not have returned that verdict.
Now, I may be wrong about that. I’m not claiming omniscience. However, I think that treating terrorists differently than other criminals sends a message to the terrorists and not one I think we should be sending.
To me, it’s clear that terrorists can be tried in federal courts and that’s where they should be tried, with all due process they deserve.
Perhaps the MCs are fair and impartial and the rules of evidence are stringent enough that real justice is being meted out.
It is hard for me to believe that when the people have been held in detention so long without a trial already.
OzoneR
@singfoom:
I’m not in favor of military tribunals, but what message is that? That we’re treating them as military prisoners? That we’re treating them like British POWs or German POWs or Japanese POWs? i’m not sure why that would be a huge deal seeing as we’ve always had military prisoners.
joe from Lowell
@Bob Loblaw: Are you retarded? This has been one of the most reported-on criminal cases of the past decade.
Khalid Sheik Mohammed has received exactly as many trials for his involvement in 9/11 as Dick Cheney has for ordering torture. Please, sir, may I talk about what I think about that evidence? Pretty please?
Wanker.
singfoom
@OzoneR:
singfoom
@OzoneR: I think that treating terrorists as anything other than common criminals gives them more of the platform they want. It adds to the terror, because they’re just so bad we have to try them like this…. If you treat them like the common criminals they are, it de-legitimizes some of their justifications.
Plus, given where these specific terrorists come to, I think it helps the US on a strategic level to hold ourselves to a higher standard of behavior. It would be beneficial to our soft power in the world to act high-mindedly as we like to think we do all the time.
But hey, I could be wrong.
joe from Lowell
@singfoom:
I think there are a lot of members of the general public, and even politicians, who support them for that reason, but that’s more of a point about our stupid political culture than about the conduct of the tribunals themselves. The fact is that the federal courts have gotten a lot more convictions over the past decade on terrorism cases than military tribunals.
joe from Lowell
@singfoom: I’m absolutely with you about this. It would be much better to try these criminals in the real courts.
Military tribunals may meet the standards of the constitution, but that doesn’t make them a good idea.
Tax Analyst
@A L:
Wait, you’re not “Avril Lavigne” are you? I used to be a big fan. Kin I git yur autigraff?
OzoneR
@singfoom: That makes sense
Corner Stone
@joe from Lowell: There is no evidence. Don’t you get that? There is NO evidence.
fasteddie9318
@joe from Lowell:
But the question of what legally constitutes “torture” is still unclear for these tribunals, no?
fasteddie9318
@OzoneR:
Sucks to be them, I guess. They’re all free to be Little Stalins in their own minds, but they don’t get to drag the rest of the country down into that sewer also too.
Bob Loblaw
@Corner Stone:
That is untrue.
@joe from Lowell:
I will repeat myself. You have no idea what you’re talking about. There are all sorts of things that are actually known. KSM’s public statements to Al Jazeera. His confessions. The declassified status review (http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo/detainees/10024-khalid-shaikh-mohammed#8). The declassified status reviews of his four co-conspirators. The summation of physical evidence collected at the time of his arrest. The summation of intelligence evidence in the 9/11 report.
But this idea that you know what the government will and won’t be using from his time in custody is bunk. You don’t know the breadth of what is tainted. You don’t know how much of the conspiracy information both provided by KSM and used against him by others (like al-Qahtani) is tainted. You don’t know what the government can use, can’t use, will use and won’t use. So stop pretending like you’re an expert on the CIA proceedings and the extent to which torture impacts the entirety of the government’s ideal case against the guy.
All you know is that the government has an ironclad conspiracy case regarding the 9/11 attacks alone, KSM confessed to that plot and a great many others both freely and under duress, and that everything after that is a big murky ball of shit.
General Stuck
@Bob Loblaw:
So, then Holder doesn’t know either what evidence is not tainted and admissible in the federal courts he was planning to try KSM in? I think not loblaw. There has been great pains taken to separate that out by the DOJ, and that sorting out will be available to the prosecutors and judges in a military commission as well. Problems will maybe come about also making available the evidence against KSM, to his defense team, ie classified info. But I suspect they will work out that bedrock of American jurisprudence in a constitutional way.
Bob Loblaw
@General Stuck:
Holder? I’m talking about joe from Lowell you idiot.
Corner Stone
@Bob Loblaw: Fuck you Bobby Horse.
Until it is entered into evidence it means shit. I could tell you right now that I killed Patty Hearst and her little doggie and it means shit.
All the “collected” evidence means shit until it’s on the record and crossed.
General Stuck
@Bob Loblaw:
And I’m talking about you idiot. Bloviating about how no one could possibly know what evidence is not tainted.
I am using the fact that Holder has stated this emphatically and that he would not have been willing to bring charges against KSM in civilian court if it wasn’t the case. Or, me blowing a giant hole of logic in your bullshit, that always has them.
I am saying this is in fact bullshit. Unless you want to accept that Holder doesn’t know which evidence is tainted, or not.
edit – and the only thing I have heard Jfl state, as others have, is that there does exist evidence that isn’t tainted., precisely which, I didn’t hear him state.
General Stuck
@General Stuck:
ah, fuck it, said I wasn’t going to go around and round with shitass trolls anymore. what a pointless and time wasting endeavor it is.
Bob Loblaw
@General Stuck:
Why are you still talking about Holder? What goes through your mind when you get hung up like this?
I’m clearly talking about laymen commenters. Not people actually attached to the case. I would assume those in the latter category know what they’re prosecuting on, yes.
General Stuck
@Bob Loblaw:
That I get tired of reading vacuous taunts from numbnut trolls trying to stir up the shit with false charges. I have no need to rescue anyone, and JFL can take care of himself. But your comment just pissed me off, at it’s lack of factual base, and high load of assholish mendacity. Here is a thought. Why don’t you not worry so much what other people are saying, and that you don’t like them, and try to come up with some factual insight on the thread topic. And I will do the same, and hopefully go back to ignoring your tedious taunts that seem to flow like a river of shit. And you are not the only one.
Bob Loblaw
@General Stuck:
Improbable. Though I suppose there’s a first time for everything.
KRK
@Rob Wolfe:
It would be tried in the federal district court in Guam.
OzoneR
@fasteddie9318:
oh yes they do, the perils of democracy
General Stuck
@Bob Loblaw:
We will pray the FSM pulls that giant stick out of your ass, loblaw.
Improbable, but
Corner Stone
@OzoneR:
Won’t some one please rid me of this meddlesome Nick?
I have no idea who he is but I am NOT him, and obviously I know he’s a real nut.
Just Some Fuckhead
@General Stuck:
You ever considered the problem might be with you?
Just Some Fuckhead
@Corner Stone:
Nick has lost complete control of his sockpuppets. He just checks in now to insult himself.
Corner Stone
“Yielding to political opposition, the Obama administration gave up Monday on trying avowed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four alleged henchmen in civilian federal court in New York and will prosecute them instead before military commissions.”
I think that says it all.
General Stuck
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Yea, I considered it. Then I read the toxic sludge you and your little posse of Heathers from hell publish, and know that it isn’t me. Especially since I been trying to ignore you fuckers and not get drawn into the emptyness of permanent childhood you bring to this blog.
Just Some Fuckhead
@General Stuck:
Just seems to always be you and someone else.
OzoneR
@Just Some Fuckhead: @Corner Stone: Funny how you two are the only ones to go around and call me this Nick person.
Very telling.
General Stuck
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Yea right. Now go back to taunting JFL, or eemom, or Nick and his imagined sockpuppets, or whoever the current target is for you pack of jackals. You sure as shit have nothing else to offer.
Just Some Fuckhead
@OzoneR: Who the hell is Nick?
General Stuck
@OzoneR:
Only advice I can give you is try to ignore the blog stalking miscreants.
OzoneR
@General Stuck:
I have, but I don’t really understand who this Nick guy is or why I’m being accused of being him.
General Stuck
@OzoneR:
Not possible to understand the motives of idiots, them being idiots after all.
Corner Stone
@OzoneR: Who are you, and what have you done with our beloved Nick?
bob h
And what about the assholes who work in Lower Manhattan who don’t want to be inconvenienced by the trial of those who slaughtered their friends and colleagues? Is God’s Work too important for that?
tkogrumpy
@General Stuck: Well said.