On Wednesday November 18, Attorney General Eric Holder defended the administration’s decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 9/11 plotters in U.S. criminal courts. Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Holder was asked by Sen. Lindsey Graham if Osama bin Laden would be entitled to a Miranda warning. Holder responded that the answer would “depend” on the circumstances. At the heart of Sen. Graham’s questioning was a distinction between whether captured terrorists will be afforded the criminal protections granted to others tried in criminal courts (a law enforcement model) or not (a law-of-war model).
Sen. Graham’s focus and conclusion in this line of questioning are clearly right. While the Miranda issue isn’t as clear as he suggests, the choice of a law-of-war model or a law enforcement model is the key issue, and there he’s right. We live in a post-9/11 world and should act accordingly.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not some Bond villain, an errant super-criminal finally put behind bars. He led an organized network of foreigners abroad who were at war with us long before KSM’s actions pushed us into war with them. For those foreign terrorists, as opposed to their home-grown financiers or fellow travelers, our criminal justice system is ill-fitted. It is both too much, in the scope of rights and platform for mischief it provides, and too little, in its incapacity to address the overseas intelligence and military issues that arise. The trials of the World Trade Center bombers and of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called twentieth hijacker, proved how incapable our justice system is at efficiently prosecuting terrorists while safeguarding information necessary to our own war efforts. And, the Obama administration’s rationale for providing a jury trial for the worst war criminals, while reserving to the military commissions lesser al-Qaeda members, is impossible to discern or defend.
The administration’s choice also undermines our criminal justice system. Already, the President has publicly stated that KSM is guilty and should be put to death; Department of Justice officials have indicated that he would be held as an enemy combatant if acquitted or prematurely released; and the AG and others have said that the choice between the systems depends on the strength of the evidence at hand. This is the language of show trial, and demeans and politicizes our criminal justice system. As Sen. Webb observed, KSM doesn’t belong in our country, our courts, or our prisons.
101 responses so far
1 ottovbvs // Nov 19, 2009 at 5:07 pm
…….I have a bit more trust in the cred of Holder than Gonzales, Ashford and Mukasey who were all basically disgraces to the office of AG……. I suggest you read what Judge Posner, hardly a judicial liberal, has to say on the subject
2 tdawg11870 // Nov 19, 2009 at 5:23 pm
…and if everything goes according to plan, just like all the other terrorists we tried without much trouble, none of the folks peddling fear about having a proper trial will NOT be held to account.
3 tdawg11870 // Nov 19, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Oh dang. double negative. you know what I mean.
4 ProfNickD // Nov 19, 2009 at 6:47 pm
ottobvs,
Your faith is misplaced. What David and others (such as Andrew McCarthy, the prosecutor for the 1st WTC bombing) are saying is that the federal courts and their rules of evidence (discovery, Mirandizing, interrogation procedures, etc.) make the trials of enemy combatants caught on the battlefield or by intelligence networks impossible.
Just think what will happen: the defense attorneys (oh, and KSM will get the best there is) will file a motion as soon as they are apopinted to be KSM’s attorney, to have the case dismissed altogether. Why? Nobody ever read KSM his rights.
Now what?
5 cpanza // Nov 19, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Otto:
Do you have a link for the Posner piece?
6 jruss89 // Nov 19, 2009 at 8:20 pm
I can understand why one might be worried about handing the lunatic on trial a microphone, but do you honestly think that the risk of him getting acquitted is so high? I mean, we really know -nothing- about what evidence they have, how it was obtained, or anything about the case at all. Given that Holder went to Columbia Law (which, I heard was pretty good) I’m sure he would be able to realize whether, given criminal court laws, this is a sure thing. Unless of course one assumes that because he works for government he all of a sudden went insane, I think that his law degree (let alone one from Columbia) will be able to help him decide whether he can get a win in a criminal court, and gain in the popular front, or he should instead be safer and go through a military court system.
7 sinz54 // Nov 19, 2009 at 8:20 pm
I sure hope that the trial of KSM goes well: No sensitive secrets compromised, no terrorist attacks, and the death penalty for KSM.
If it doesn’t go well,
at least we conservatives will get Obama’s political scalp as a consolation prize.
Because if the KSM trial ends up something like the O.J. Simpson farce trial,
Obama will never recover from that blow.
8 balconesfault // Nov 19, 2009 at 9:23 pm
As far as I know, there are additional charges against KSM which are not being brought at this time, for which he would still be detained no matter the results of this trial.
Likely case – KSM is found guilty using the evidence provided.
Other case – KSM is found unable to be convicted based on procedural grounds – this would without question lead to challenges to the grounds for dismissal, taken to a higher court. Eventually it would fall into the lap of the Supreme Court to rule on whether there is a different set of protections to be applied to a certain class of detainees.
I prefer this decision eventually being made by the Court, and writ as precedent, than being scribbled in Justice Department memos and hidden in drawers.
9 BoolaBoola // Nov 19, 2009 at 9:25 pm
And WHY is it so difficult to classify KSM, to figure out whether to try him as a wartime enemy or as a civilian criminal?
It’s difficult because the distinction has been blurred by the nonsensical idea of a “war on terror”.
Just one more thing we can thank the Right Man for.
10 sdspringy // Nov 19, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Obama and Holder have both said,”KSM will not go free, KSM will be convicted.”
Jury pool tainted, defense motion to dismiss. Point to the lib appointed judge that won’t slam the gavel “Case Dismissed”.
The question is Why? Why bring KSM to New York, when he would be convicted in Gitmo?
Why run the risk of hundreds of people outside the courthouse being hit by a suicide bomber?
Why give KSM a platform to rant? Can’t hear him in Gitmo.
The only obvious WHY is because this is not about KSM, justice, or anything so far disclosed.
The evidence Holder has and wants to use will do as much or more damage to Cheney/Bush as KSM.
Cheney/Bush are the targets, always have been.
11 BethKathele // Nov 20, 2009 at 12:10 am
Really a educative and informative post, the post is good in all regards,I am glad to read this post.
http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=2222539
12 Kanzeon // Nov 20, 2009 at 2:41 am
I’m having trouble following this.
First, you refer to a “war” we are apparently engaged in with the terrorists. If we are going to determine the legal status of those captured, “war” cannot be a metaphor, and can only be a legal concept. Who is a criminal, and who is a combatant? If a lone gunman comes to the US to kill the President for political reasons, is he at “war” with us? Or does he need a “network?” A network of 20 members? 500? If the same network is comprised of citizens, are they combatants? It seems you want to gloss over the key question.
Your approach is entirely utilitarian: you want the prosecutions to be conducted efficiently, and to get the “correct” result, but the criminal justice is deliberately inefficient by handing advantages to the accused. You mention national security, but aren’t specific: in fact, there are specific statutes to protect state secrets in criminal trials. Lindsay Graham confronted Holder with the question of whether Osama would be entitled to Miranda rights, with the subtext that such a conclusion is self-evidently absurd. It is only absurd if you don’t value the rights in the first place.
Then you argue, strangely, that the decision to use the civil justice system undermines the courts – but your only evidence is that statements made outside the civil justice system, relating to consequences if the courts do not produce the desired result. The justice system isn’t being undermined by the decision to try KSM in a civil court, but by the administration’s failure to respect the process. The solution is for the White House to accept the process it is advocating, not claim that the process itself is being inevitably undermined.
I’m not saying you’re wrong – but if you’re right it is entirely coincidence, since your observations are devoid of reasoned analysis.
13 Toddtheconservative // Nov 20, 2009 at 5:50 am
What is more civil rights then this. We are making a lot of bad decisions here in America and Holder should pay attention to this.
http://americaspeaksink.com/2009/11/democracy-vs-communism-democracy-lost/
14 MI-GOPer // Nov 20, 2009 at 8:44 am
The real problem with all of the ethics-challenged choices that yet another Obama Cabinet appointee is confronted with in the KSM et al federal trials is that Stedman-Holder is even more tainted than any NYC jury pool could possibly be.
His former firm made money off defending several radical Islamic terrorists. He personally was enriched from that representation because the firm brought in tons of new, paying business off the highly pr-lucrative terrorist cases. His hands are covered in the blood of innocent Americans terrorized by monsterly insane jihadists.
Stedman-Holder is a just another fraud operating as a serious person in the Obama Office of Inexperience. Let’s remember, this is the man who had zero problems giving Marc Rich a pardon… if he had his way and given that Bernie Madoff (could that guy’s last name be more ironic??) was a big contributor to Senate Democrats, I’m betting Stedman-Holder would recommend Made-Off get a pardon too.
Stedman-Holder is a crook and a flaking fake as AG wannabe. He couldn’t even shine Gonalez’s boots.
BTW, AutomaticBS gets it wrong @ #1 again… it wasn’t “Ashford”, it was former Senator John Ashcroft –uber patriot, faith oriented and dedicated public servant who was hated by the radical Left for the same reasons the Democrat Party hates Sarah Palin… both are better people than they are.
Imagine that? AutomaticBS wrong again? What’s happening to the tribe of trolls and our Village Idiot?
15 cpanza // Nov 20, 2009 at 9:13 am
I think Kanzeon raises some legitimate points. I’d be interested in hearing replies to them. I too am not positive whether Klinger’s conclusion is correct, but the reasoning is not persuasive. Unfortunately the responses in comment section so far don’t help, as they are mostly composed of a sling of ad hominems rooted in some claim to righteous outrage.
16 sinz54 // Nov 20, 2009 at 9:35 am
Kanzeon:
I’m not sure what you’re driving at here.
Are you suggesting that you would be comfortable with KSM being acquitted and going free, if that’s what the judge or jury decides?
And if we ever get Osama bin Laden into a courtroom, would you be comfortable with Osama being acquitted and going free, if that’s what the judge or jury decides?
The difference between war and criminal proceedings is that in war, you do NOT have to be fair to the enemy, if such fairness prevents victory in the war.
Letting the mastermind of a terrorist war against America go free on some technicality because that’s what a quirk in the law demands, is not a victory for America in any sense. It’s a disastrous defeat for America.
17 balconesfault // Nov 20, 2009 at 9:40 am
as they are mostly composed of a sling of ad hominems rooted in some claim to righteous outrage.
Reading Mi-GOPer, I am too often reminded of the scene in A Beautiful Mind, where John Nash’s wife walks into the barn and finds the wall covered in little pieces of paper…
18 balconesfault // Nov 20, 2009 at 9:41 am
The difference between war and criminal proceedings is that in war, you do NOT have to be fair to the enemy, if such fairness prevents victory in the war.
Sinz, could you repeat for us once again the criteria by which you will judge America to no longer be at war, and a return to the formal rule of law will be justified?
19 cpanza // Nov 20, 2009 at 9:49 am
Sinz,
Playing devil’s advocate here. First, we have no idea what the evidence is against KSM. The decision to go to court with it may well reflect the fact that they have endless reams of damning evidence, and as such the possibility of acquittal is 0.0001%.
On that small possibility, however. Surely a community, just as much as a nation, can say the same thing about a particularly heinous serial murderer. Anytime such a person is put on trial there is a chance of acquittal, and of that person being a danger to the citizens.
Basically, Kanzeon could just reply and say that although he/she would not be happy at all with such a conclusion, his/her respect for the system itself — and the juries that go along with it — requires taking those sorts of risks. Especially in cases like this, where the risk is incredibly small.
It seems to me that if anything, the argument will have to rest on a different argument than one aimed at some sort of consequentialist analysis of how things might turn out in the worst case. Specifically, it seems to me that it will have to argued on the basis of KSM’s classification as a defendant. Those arguments may be persuasive, but I haven’t heard them yet.
20 sinz54 // Nov 20, 2009 at 10:07 am
jruss89:
My main concern is that KSM has the right of discovery–and that could prove disastrous.
Since all the evidence obtained from KSM through enhanced interrogation proceedures will certainly be thrown out by the judge, the Government will have to rely on other, presumably sensitive, information obtained through intelligence gathering, surveillance, etc. And in a criminal proceeding, a defendant has the right to see any evidence to be used against him. I guarantee you that once KSM sees it, it will be on its way to al-Qaeda, just as happened in the 1993 and 1996 terrorism cases.
Holder is right that the current laws can safeguard classified information. But any skilled intelligence analyst will tell you that you can learn a tremendous lot even from unclassified information, once you start connecting the dots. (The CIA gets more out of so-called “open source” information than from enemy top secrets.) The information spirited to al-Qaeda from the 1990s trials wasn’t top secret. But it sure was useful to them.
21 sinz54 // Nov 20, 2009 at 10:11 am
balconesfault:
Sure.
I’m old enough to remember the days when you didn’t have to go through magnetic detector screens at airports. Or have your baggage X-rayed. Because in the 1950s, something like 9-11 would have been inconceivable.
The criteria are very simple: We will consider the War on Terror over, when we can safely repeal ALL the security measures instituted since 9-11, without fear of another terrorist attack. That means: No more taking our shoes off at airports; no more backpack inspections at public gatherings; no more turning our political conventions into armed camps. We go back to being the open society we were before–without fear of another terrorist attack.
This is exactly analogous to past wars. When Japan surrendered in 1945, Americans stopped doing regular air raid drills. When the Cold War eased in the 1960s, American schoolchildren stopped doing regular “duck and cover” drills. (I used to do those drills when I was in first and second grade in grammar school. Then, by the time I got to fourth grade, they were over.)
22 sinz54 // Nov 20, 2009 at 10:12 am
balconesfault:
One more thing. Once the War on Terror is over, we can repeal the PATRIOT Act too.
23 tdawg11870 // Nov 20, 2009 at 10:21 am
Sinz54: Another reason we stopped doing duck and cover drills was because they were ineffective.
Besides, when have security measures ever been related to actual threats? The rule forcing air travelers to take off their shoes is designed to address a threat created by an eight-year-old incident in which not only did the plot fail, but experts agree that it could never have worked.
The presence or absence of an actual threat has no relation to how much people fear it and how much inconvenience they are willing to bear to feel protected from it. See this week’s Great Mammogram Debate.
24 Kanzeon // Nov 20, 2009 at 10:54 am
sinz54:
“Are you suggesting that you would be comfortable with KSM [or Osama] being acquitted and going free, if that’s what the judge or jury decides?”
They are entitled to SOME process, aren’t they? We never proceed straight to execution. I may not always agree with the result, whatever the process. I’m not comfortable with anyone going free, if I think they are guilty. The question is what procedure is most appropriate. I consider this a legitimate debate, with points on both sides. I think whatever the rules are, they should be consistently applied, and make some logical sense.
“The difference between war and criminal proceedings is that in war, you do NOT have to be fair to the enemy, if such fairness prevents victory in the war. ”
I disagree. We have, theoretically, rules in war which prevent the mass slaughter of civilians, which can prevent victory in some cases. The difference between war and crime is vast: soldiers kill one another in war, and are not considered criminals – the entire social contract is rewritten. There are various considerations during wartime – national security, morale at home – which are not important in criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, in war, a civilized nation will treat enemy combatants as fairly as the circumstances allow.
It’s one thing to argue against technical acquittals, for protection of state secrets, and express concern over public perceptions. It’s quite another to argue against the concept of fairness itself.
25 balconesfault // Nov 20, 2009 at 10:55 am
Thanks Sinz.
I don’t ask again to be pedantic. I ask because I really don’t believe we can/will ever get there again. If we cut back on security in any significant way … and some loony kills a bunch of people … a lot of bureaucrats and politicians will be on the hotseat. Some will lose their jobs.
And we won’t ever completely eliminate dangerous loonies from our society.
We won’t ever even completely eliminate dangerous religious loonies from our society, no matter how profane and ludicrous the concept of killing anyone in God’s name (I figure that if God wants someone dead, He’s fully capable of taking care of that Himself).
And we won’t even completely eliminate any possibility that one of those dangerous religious loonies who kills a bunch of people will yell Allah Akhbar or leave some manifesto claiming that he was part of Al Qaeda.
And the politicians and bureaucrats know it. That’s why adding security measures that restrict our liberties should always be weighed heavily. When waging war against a verb – “terrorism” – instead of a sovereign nation, those security measures will be a rachet, never to be eliminated because of any sensible balancing of threat and inconvenience/cost … but only to be eliminated at such time as they become so intrusive and inconvenient that the populace (or big business) demands that they be repealed.
26 Kanzeon // Nov 20, 2009 at 11:09 am
sinz54:
“My main concern is that KSM has the right of discovery–and that could prove disastrous.”
Yes: COULD. But neither you nor I have any idea whether that is in fact the case. Holder probably does.
“Since all the evidence obtained from KSM through enhanced interrogation proceedures will certainly be thrown out by the judge,”
Isn’t this an argument against enhanced interrogation more than the use of the justice system?
” the Government will have to rely on other, presumably sensitive, information obtained through intelligence gathering, surveillance, etc.”
Yes, PRESUMABLY. But we don’t have any idea what the information is, and whether it is sensitive, especially at this late date.
“And in a criminal proceeding, a defendant has the right to see any evidence to be used against him. I guarantee you that once KSM sees it, it will be on its way to al-Qaeda, just as happened in the 1993 and 1996 terrorism cases. ”
How, exactly? We don’t have the ability to limit a prisoner’s communications with co-conspirators?
27 LFC // Nov 20, 2009 at 11:25 am
MI-Gopher said… it was former Senator John Ashcroft –uber patriot, faith oriented and dedicated public servant who was hated by the radical Left for the same reasons the Democrat Party hates Sarah Palin… both are better people than they are.
You mean the guy that became AG and immediately dropped terrorism off the list of top concerns of the Justice Department? After Clinton’s administration briefed the Bush administration, and Richard Clarke warned them, that AQ was planning attacks? The guy who cut the DoJ’s anti-terrorism budget? That guy?
Yeah, that’s the guy I want as AG. Uber patriot? More like uber pinhead.
28 LFC // Nov 20, 2009 at 11:38 am
Comey and Goldsmith have an interesting take on this issue over at the Washington Post. Something for the proponents of military commissions to think about:
In deciding to use federal court, the attorney general probably considered the record of the military commission system that was established in November 2001. This system secured three convictions in eight years. The only person who had a full commission trial, Osama bin Laden’s driver, received five additional months in prison, resulting in a sentence that was shorter than he probably would have received from a federal judge.
There’s more about legal issues with military commissions that are worth a read. Support of military commissions seems mostly due to fear that the federal court will be less likely to secure a conviction, but that may not actually be the case.
29 Independent // Nov 20, 2009 at 12:18 pm
“as they are mostly composed of a sling of ad hominems rooted in some claim to righteous outrage” -cpanza.
i know what you mean, although i don’t see it in this thread. i have read that kind of outrage in the other threads… especially from democrats like balcones. you’d think that every decision mr obama’s administration makes is somehow a direct reflection on the untoward course made by the bush administration.
frankly, it’s very tiring and not helpful to keep rationalizing the mistakes of mr obama as “well, we had to do something after bush… cheney… rove… insert the preferred bashing target”.
i’m surprised that about the only mainstream press exploring the dark, underbelly of mr holder’s conflict of interest in the gitmo trials is fox news –who most here make fun of like it’s a sport akin to gang-piling up on any republicans who venture onto this site.
http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/11/ag-eric-holders-law-firm-represented-18-gitmo-detainees-after-volunteering-to-give-them-free-legal-a.html
mr holder, as a principal in the firm, made a lot of money off the new cases that a highly controversial set of terrorist defense cases brought the firm. it’s like the radical aclu has taken over doj. for mr holder to claim that doj is fully ready and competent to handle the usual pre-trial antics and delay motions that criminal defense attys file in these kinds of trials is incredible and stunning.
a few months ago, he was part of the team helping to defend these terrorists who killed innocent americans and now, mr obama and the press want us to believe he’ll work hard to convict them? if eric holder had his way, sans a court proceeding, he’d probably invite them back to his palatial virginia estate and shake them down for campaign contributions to the democrat party.
i think this is why the bumper stickers i saw around town that said “al qaeda for democrats” is funny, telling and yet so true.
it’s a shame because this is definitely not the change i was voting for and it’s not the hope that the families of thousands of murdered americans have vested in.
30 Independent // Nov 20, 2009 at 12:26 pm
“Yes: COULD. But neither you nor I have any idea whether that is in fact the case. Holder probably does.” kanzeon @ 26
well, i think you might be putting just a little more faith into what mr holder is capable of than the record proves to date.
the guy can’t even win a simple pr skirmish with mr cheney on whether or not the us got actionable intelligence out of enhanced interrogation techiniques against 2-3 captured terrorists who taunted when captured, america didn’t have the guts to see it through. back then we did have the guts and commitment, not so much now i think.
even the partisan democrats here can’t spin that pr skirmish into anything other than a loss for mr holder –outclassed, outgunned, outmanned and out-thought.
and we’re supposed to believe the democrats here who say he’s ready to take on the terrorists? mr holder couldn’t even answer sen graham’s simple question of when the american govt took an enemy combatant and put them through a civil trial.
mr holder isn’t qualified to be a junior legal clerk at doj, let alone the leader of our team in these tough, tough court cases.
there is no value in having the trials and there is no warrant for exposing more americans to further terrorist threats just because mr holder is a card-carrying aclu member and profits from the defense of terrorists.
31 JohnMcC // Nov 20, 2009 at 12:28 pm
I was going to where Mr LFC took us, pointing out that Military lawyers and JAGs seemed to generally hate the military commissions that 43-and-friends gave us. Seems to me they considered them short on justice and long on politics. Should be pointed out also that 43-and-friends have kept the US from participating in any international tribunals to which KSM-and-friends could be referred. So what have 43-and-friends left us? Holder is saying that we’re left with what should have been our first choice–the Federal Court system designated in the Constitution. What a thought!
Another observation: There are Prisoners of War who are not War Criminals. The propaganda value of claiming that every detainee at Gitmo was ‘the worst of the worst’ hid this simple fact but if the NY trial should find KSM innocent because of his abusive treatment is it not obvious that he would still be a Prisoner of War?
32 Independent // Nov 20, 2009 at 12:34 pm
“MI-Gopher said… it was former Senator John Ashcroft –uber patriot, faith oriented and dedicated public servant who was hated by the radical Left for the same reasons the Democrat Party hates Sarah Palin… both are better people than they are.” (break) “You mean the guy that became AG and immediately dropped terrorism off the list of top concerns of the Justice Department… blah, blah, blah insert the usual DailyKo talking points in order.” lfc @ 28
i would think that the only bush-ag to have serious doubts about the adverse impact on civil liberties that the patriot act might have would receive a better reception from you, lfc. i see you’re just the garden variety of democrat partisan hack and troll that populates the frumforum’s bridge to reason and sanity.
when you decide to really show those true colors, lfc, you make them in technicolor and laser-like for all to see.
ashcroft was a far better, more committed civil liberatarian than many “progressive” democrats who pretend to be such. you really need to get out more and drop the hardcore partisan drivel… it makes you so transparent.
33 Kanzeon // Nov 20, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Independent:
Your link says Holder’s firm offered free legal services. Supposedly, they donated 3,000 worth of time in one year alone. That’s probably $1 million of free work.
That constitutes at most ideological bias of some of the lawyers, not a conflict of interest on Holder’s part. You can speculate that the firm came out ahead by receiving publicity, and liberal clients signing on – but I would think that’s pretty far fetched, considering the $1 million investment. Do you have a single example of a paying client they reeled in by doing this free work?
How is this any different from conservative lawyers volunteering to help pro-life groups, or liberal lawyers volunteering for the ACLU? Liberal lawyers volunteer for liberal causes, and join Democratic administrations, just as conservative lawyers volunteer for conservative causes and have futures in conservative politics.
Look at Covington’s client list:
http://www.cov.com/representativeclients/
It ain’t ACORN and Code Pink. Is Holder now barred from dealing with any commercial matter you could name, by virtue of the fact that the firm represents major player in almost every industry.
34 Independent // Nov 20, 2009 at 12:37 pm
ahh, how predictable?
more bush bashing from the trolls.
but look, this time our trolls have invented a new character… it’s John McC.
how clever. how witty. how charming. how transparently vile.
35 Kanzeon // Nov 20, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Independent:
Holder is unqualified to be AG, because you think he was bested in a verbal exchange with Dick Cheney?
If this is a valid argument or observation to you, then clearly you are not one to judge who gained the upper hand in any debate, or to judge who is qualified in any capacity to do anything.
36 rbottoms // Nov 20, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Of course not. They don’t believe in anything other than stirring up fear and the outrage du jour.
Now there’s a track record that screams Bush administration.
37 Independent // Nov 20, 2009 at 1:01 pm
i think you might want to spend some time learning about law firms and the practice of law as a business, kanzeon.
mr holder is a principal in the firm and receives about 4.75% percent of any profit the firm makes from other cases brought to the firm by those sympathetic to the firm for taking highly public terrorist defense cases… please see mark geragos if you have problems understanding why a firm takes a high profile case, even pro bono, if that. if you need a lesson on how lawyers make money while appearing to serve the public’s interest as a legal official of the govt, please see janet reno’s life who, when she left the clinton white house, she was able to claim net assets of $14.9m in her filings for a run as florida’s gov-bunny.
secondly, mr holder was on the management team of the firm when the decision was made to take the terrorist defense cases. you say there’s 3000 hrs of work already in those cases –yes, dorothy, the firm is still defending these terrorists against getting a fair, full trial and justice. are there really 3000 hrs? ever see a bill from a legal firm that wasn’t padded, generously? and guess what, at the end of the day the firm does receive compensation from the us govt for their defense efforts. there is no pro bono in law –it’s all about making money somehow.
third, you ask how this is different than if some conservative lawyer worked for a pro-life group… well, if that lawyer became the us atty gen and decided to extend constitutional rights to a fetus where the no case law indicates that fetus has those rights, then i’m guessing you and a few others here would be first in line with pitchforks screaming conflict of interest and demanding recusal.
38 Independent // Nov 20, 2009 at 1:10 pm
“Now there’s a track record that screams Bush administration.”
speaking of “track record” mr bottoms, i was on a site recently where they were still talking about you –and not in a generous, kind way.
it seems some of them are still getting violently abusive emails from you, you stalk them onto other venues and you still exhibit a very unsettling propensity toward abhorrent conduct.
thank goodness you don’t do any of that stuff here, eh?
39 Kanzeon // Nov 20, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Independent:
This is my last post to you:
Point One: I am well aware of how business, including the business of law firms, work. Charity work, pro bono work, enhances the firm’s reputation and visibility. That theoretically increases revenue, but by how much is uncertain. It is fairly absurd to think that spending $1 million per year on pro bono will bring in $1 million of new business from the list of blue chip companies on their client list. Even if you could somehow tie the two, then you still haven’t established a conflict of interest for Mr. Holder, any more than his firm doing work for major industries bars him, personally, from taking positions relating to the interests of those industries.
Point Two: The firm is HUGE. What do you mean “Holder was on the management team?” Was he the managing director of the firm, or on whatever committee handled pro bono work? Even if he was, that only points to an ideological bias. It is not a conflict of interest.
Point Three: I expect conservative AGs to take prolife positions as AG. I would also expect that they might have some friendly dealings, or be associated with, pro bono work, among prolife groups. I wouldn’t demand recusal, unless the attorney general himself had directly worked for one of the prolife groups at issue in any particular lawsuit (and perhaps not even then). Only an idiot would take that position.
40 Independent // Nov 20, 2009 at 1:31 pm
“NOTE TO MODERATORS: PLEASE REMOVE THESE OFFENSIVE POSTS OF KANZEON. They are a distraction from an otherwise interesting debate. Thanks.”
well, you get called on the carpet for what you are and you get angry? kanzeon, such a drama queen… darling, are you a lawyer by chance because that kind of faux outrage is hard to come by.
hey moderators, while you’re at it, can you also stop the trolls like balconesfault from posting under multiple characters… mr face, kanzeon, JohnMcC… the ip address will nail balconesfault for the crimes. thank you, david.
bakc to the question you raised, kanzeon… i didn’t say what you spun, i made it clear if your foggy rendition got fouled going through the tinfoil hat you wear… how can americans rest assured that mr holder is able to handle the tough pr battle with seasoned slimey trial lawyers if he can’t win a simple pr battle with mr cheney in the press?
and you answer ought to have been: because mr holder is a slimey trial lawyer who’s firm protects and profits from defending murderous terrorists who killed us soldiers and innocent civilians?
is that your point? if it is, i don’t think we need to take you seriously no matter what name or character you adopt today… “kanzeon”.
41 balconesfault // Nov 20, 2009 at 2:09 pm
fwiw, kanzeon has looked into this far more than I have, and I appreciate his postings. I also sympathize with him in his attempts to actually have a reasoned dialogue with Independent, free of vitriol and name-calling.
Feel free to check with the people who run the list as to whether I post under multiple names. They would be able to disabuse you of that particular paranoia … although I’m wondering if it is a form of projection, given his obsession with what other sites a person might comment at and the tendency of another here to fixate on the same issue.
Then again, you might not want to be asking the moderators anything. For calling attention to you might call attention to the abusive tone that you increasingly take when people don’t accept your version of reality. And were I in Frums place, I’d see well reasoned challenges from the left to be a way of attracting crossover voters while the namecalling and abuse hurling mode you tend to go into almost certainly serves to help persuade any moderates who might follow a link here that Republicanism has a lot farther way to go down before it can start to come back up.
42 MI-GOPer // Nov 20, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Independent #30 writes: “well, i think you might be putting just a little more faith into what mr holder is capable of than the record proves to date. the guy can’t even win a simple pr skirmish with mr cheney on whether or not the us got actionable intelligence out of enhanced interrogation techiniques against 2-3 captured terrorists who taunted when captured, america didn’t have the guts to see it through.”
Of course this will get the trolls who post on this site mighty mad, Independent. You’re now suggesting that Stedman-Holder isn’t even capable of taking on the likes of DarthVader Cheney and beating him in a public relations/press war about the value of enhanced interrogation techniques?
How dare you!
And then, to add insult to injury, you suggest that if Stedman-Holder can’t even do that little task and beat Cheney, how can we expect him to handle slick trial lawyers who make a living out of getting their terrorist clients off scot-free? And it turns out that his firm and Stedman-Holder profits from it all??
How dare you!
Then, worst of all, you suggest that the tribe of trolls here might be playing some underhanded, underbridge (LOL) tricks in using multiple names and multiple characters to post complimentary comments that will reinforce one and the other???
Like BlankHead does above… well, that will get you a tongue lashing from the newest troll tribe member… SarahPalin2… compliments of BlankHead, Kanzeon, JohnMcC and TeaBagged.
I agree with you; these guys are pathetic caricatures of reality. They’re still working off the DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe’s Manual for Fire Eaters. Sad, indeed.
As for BlankHead’s charge: “And were I in Frums place, I’d see well reasoned challenges from the left to be a way of attracting crossover voters while the namecalling and abuse hurling mode you tend to go into…” sounds an awful lot to me like the screaming that Kanzeon was just doing a few comments above.
Kanzeon… BlankHead… JohnMcC. I think what moderates reading here need to take away is that someone who voted for Obama-Biden and a self-professed “independent” thinks that he’s been lied to and frauded out of his vote by the Democrats.
Moreover, Kanzeon or BlankHead or Mr Face or JohnMcC or whomever you are, moderates need to know the full measure of a group of democrat activists and flaming trolls who come to this site to do nothing but disrupt its purpose, defeat its goal and incite, inflame, irritate and annoy.
That’s the lesson, BlankHead. And Independent knows it –as do many, many other readers here.
43 MI-GOPer // Nov 20, 2009 at 2:32 pm
BlankHead admits: “fwiw, kanzeon has looked into this far more than I have, and I appreciate his postings.”
Speaking of yourself as a second, separate character is a sign of deep psychosis, BlankHead. Or is this just another democrat underground debate trick?
44 rbottoms // Nov 20, 2009 at 3:49 pm
The most satisfying thing to come from the flip out of the GOP over president ObamHitlerMao is is been just one year, they’ve tried turning the amp up to 10, then 11, and now we’re at 12 and he’s still president.
Come mid-term primaries I expect mass coronaries and when Democrats actually don’t lose every seat in a landslide, a stroke out of the teabaggers as Obama fails to be impeached or revealed as the Anti-Christ.
Palin/Jindal
Moose & Squirrelly/2012
45 Independent // Nov 20, 2009 at 4:04 pm
it’s kind of interesting mi-gop… weren’t you the one accusing balconesfault and others of being regular posters at democrat activist, far left radical blogs like huffpo and dailykos.
and didn’t they deny it?
although you can’t search the dailykos for names or handles… you can type in balconesfault and find that it’s taken… you can type in kanzeon and find out it’s taken.
nawh, these aren’t trolls just ripping talking points from the dailykos and huffpo and then coming here to flame people who are really interested in rebuilding the republicans… and finding out how to appeal to independents.
nawh, couldn’t be… well, couldn’t be closer to the truth, that is
46 Independent // Nov 20, 2009 at 4:05 pm
rbottoms… speaking of “track record” mr bottoms, i was on a site recently where they were still talking about you –and not in a generous, kind way.
it seems some of them are still getting violently abusive emails from you, you stalk them onto other venues and you still exhibit a very unsettling propensity toward abhorrent conduct.
thank goodness you don’t do any of that stuff here, eh? why post, you have no credibility here or lots of other places, it seems.
47 balconesfault // Nov 20, 2009 at 4:22 pm
weren’t you the one accusing balconesfault and others of being regular posters at democrat activist, far left radical blogs like huffpo and dailykos.
And I acknowledged that I have certainly commented there in the past … although with 59 comments over 5 years, one’s reflection of “regular” may vary. I post that many times here in a week, I think. I read DailyKos and have posted there, as well – I would certainly agree that Kos has it’s share of extremists, which makes it annoying at times. More often these days, I find myself gravitating towards this site or Balloon-Juice – you might check out the latter – John Cole is a military vet, and was a hard core Republican blogger until the Terri Schaivo affair, which pretty much soured him on the “party of personal liberties and small government.”
The point? Best I can tell, the ideal version of the GOP for MI-GOPer and “Independent” is a GOP that is wholly insulated from any outside ideas.
Problem is … that’s not why Frum started this forum, it seems.
48 rbottoms // Nov 20, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Speaking of Kos.
Suckers.
49 rbottoms // Nov 20, 2009 at 4:33 pm
BTW, being from that horrible right wing state, I know it’s a crummy time of year to be standing out in the cold. Who knows though, if Palin keeps up this kind of track record Indiana might go for Obama again in 2012.
Palin/Jindal
Moose & Squirrelly/2012
50 Independent // Nov 20, 2009 at 4:40 pm
and speaking of rbottoms:
rbottoms… speaking of “track record” mr bottoms, i was on a site recently where they were still talking about you –and not in a generous, kind way.
it seems some of them are still getting violently abusive emails from you, you stalk them onto other venues and you still exhibit a very unsettling propensity toward abhorrent conduct.
thank goodness you don’t do any of that stuff here, eh? why post, you have no credibility here or lots of other places, it seems
51 Independent // Nov 20, 2009 at 4:46 pm
“The point? Best I can tell, the ideal version of the GOP for MI-GOPer and “Independent” is a GOP that is wholly insulated from any outside ideas. Problem is … that’s not why Frum started this forum, it seems.”
well thank you for finally accepting your outing as a hard core, highly partisan, dead-left democrat activist, balconesfault.
now, are you set to admit you been using some fairly low-life, underhanded cyber posting games like using multiple names, new characters, posting supportive comments by another name to reinforce comments made under your own name? yeah, i thought that was a lot to grasp at, too. maybe another day? we got you at least walking toward the truth and that’s terrific for a troll.
as for your point, i and migop don’t have a problem with mr frum’s goal for this site. it is clearly dedicated to those who want to rebuild the gop, rebuild the conservative movement and make those two items a winning combination again.
you want no part of that scenario. you’re here to inflame, incite, irritate and annoy. disrupt. foul. spoil. play games.
the problem with you citing the purpose of mr frum with this blog? it makes you a troll. it confirms the role you want to engage. it makes your presence here suspect in the extreme.
52 balconesfault // Nov 20, 2009 at 4:52 pm
well thank you for finally accepting your outing as a hard core, highly partisan, dead-left democrat activist, balconesfault.
Well, except that I’m not. But if you’re going to label anyone who disagrees with you to the left as a hard core, highly partisan, dead-left democratic activist, you’re really trying to shrink the GOP, not grow it, y’know.
now, are you set to admit you been using some fairly low-life, underhanded cyber posting games like using multiple names, new characters, posting supportive comments by another name to reinforce comments made under your own name?
Umm – no. That would be a really stupid thing to do,
MI-GOPerIndependent.the problem with you citing the purpose of mr frum with this blog? it makes you a troll.
Let’s see – namecalling is good behavior. Talking about why Frum has this blog, to encourage a discussion in the middle between people with different viewpoints, makes one a troll. Interesting world you live in.
53 Kanzeon // Nov 20, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Independent is also a poster at dailykos.
balconesfault at dailykos has dozens of posts. “Kanzeon” has zero.
“Kanzeon” is a fairly common username. There are kanzeons posting on fitness boards, music boards, religion boards, and all sorts of other boards:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=profile+kanzeon&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=5b7cf21b103219ea
This is a long way of saying that I don’t post, as kanzeon or anyone else, at dailykos, HuffingtonPost, elitefitness.com, stevepavilina.com, elfwood.com, pennyandaggie.com , nihonomaru.com, blogcatalogue.com, eternalcorpsecouncil.com, pcgeeks.com, .searchpartner.com, kipi-fan.com, .guildrs.com, legacygt.com, forum.uptooyou.com, or any of a hundred sites have have a “kanzeon” listed as a user.
54 Independent // Nov 20, 2009 at 5:04 pm
“Point One: I am well aware of how business, including the business of law firms, work.” kanzeon @ #39
excuse me, you were the guy posting the firm’s list of clients as proof of their honor and respectability… you said “no code pink” there? the firm’s internet listing of clients that was crafted for marketing purposes of the firm, mr business. and you say you know how the business of law firms work?? then you ask for me to provide a list of clients that have hired mr holder’s firm since they took the high publicity terrorist cases? a list of confidential clients that no law firm would allow out of their grasp??? mr business is it? wow.
well, you sure aren’t inspiring confidence on that score, troll.
second, you continue on with this nonsense that doesn’t address the heart of the matter: mr holder’s firm is still working for terrorists and terrorist groups. he has a severe conflict of interest that would be easy for a boy scout with an honor badge to appreciate. both his firm and himself, personally, are making money –tons of it from the pictures of that palatial estate in virginia– off defending terrorists who killed us soldiers, killed us citizens, killed our allies with a jihadist fever that matches Major Hasan’s lunacy. and you find honor in this? this is defensible to you? what are you, an aclu type?
third, i noted that mr holder doesn’t have the capacity for this job –which will require better pr management skills than he’s displayed in the first 58 yrs of life– because he got p’wned in a simple exchange with dick cheney over EIT induced, actionable evidence. he was made to look the dupe and left sputtering on the natl stage begging like a kindergarten aged kid needing a “do-over”.
i understand you can’t debate the merits of this issue so you want to spin outlanding nonsense that has no relation to the matter at hand.
it’s tough not to have truth or facts on your side, kanzeon… or balconesfault… or JohnMcC or Mr Face… or whomever you are this thread, this day.
if you had truth or facts on your side, you’d have an informed opinion that is compelling. right now, that’s something only i have at my disposal. you have only spin… oh… and that lame attempt at calling for the blog nanny to keep the smarter boys from kicking your butt. is that like mr holder asking for a do-over?
55 Independent // Nov 20, 2009 at 5:07 pm
once again we have balconesfault and the new troll, kanzeon, posting back to back troll tribe comments.
imagine that world? so once again, balconesfault… a site dedicated to rebuilding the gop is something a troll like you has to inhabit?
and kanzeon… that’s kind of an usual name. independent, not so much. nice try at casting that net wider than you brain might allow.
56 balconesfault // Nov 20, 2009 at 5:08 pm
For what it’s worth … if you find a balconesfault, there’s a decent chance it’s me. I’ve not run across anyone else using that nom de plume.
Although there’s a pretty good local beer by that name.
For what it’s worth, the Balconesfault is what makes Central Texas geologically/topographically interesting, and why Houston oil millionaries drive hours on weekends to get to their Hill Country estate for the weekend. I like to think I make the boards I frequent interesting, as well – although like the Hill Country, challenging at times (there’s a reason Lance Armstrong lives and trains out here), but always pleasant.
57 MR FACE // Nov 20, 2009 at 5:08 pm
“Independent”
You and Mi-Gopher are the ones who constantly take these back-and-forth discussions of political issues off into crazy land. Balconesfault never starts it, he just tries to make his points initially. Maybe you don’t agree with his point of view, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t trying to have a decent conversation with you conservatives about the issues. That doesn’t make him a troll.
I think Frum would agree that it is types like Mi-Gopher who really turn a lot of people off to the conservative point of view. He thinks he is right on everything, everyone else is wrong. If you disagree with him, he will call you names and attack you. Balconesfault never attacks initially, he is just offers his opinions. Just because he may be a “liberal” (I know, very scary) doesn’t mean he is wrong on everything.
I’m sure you will attack me as being an Obama loving communist/socialist/fascist/marxist far-left radical troll. But I am not. I enjoy this site for its honest discussion between both conservatives and liberals. Reading comments on Huffington Post or Daily Kos or RedState or Hot Air is boring.
I like to read both sides of the issues and hear what everyone thinks, not just one ideology.
58 Independent // Nov 20, 2009 at 5:15 pm
“Well, except that I’m not. But if you’re going to label anyone who disagrees with you to the left as a hard core, highly partisan, dead-left democratic activist” –balconesfault
well, but you are and your commentaries here and bush bashing prove it, balconesfault. i know lots of people within this site who have disagreed with me on some issues and they aren’t called a democrat activist like you have been by many here –in fact, they don’t play games like you did here of claiming to be (a conservative) when you are not.
but i do like your attempt to link me with migop. given my success and others here in showing you for duplicitious posting, character inventing, lying scalliwag (it’s a bill oreilly term) troll fresh from the democrat underground and fire-eaters club, it’s an honor to have you fight back, snarl and try to do it to me… it just shows us all you’re more guilty than a tax cheat in an obama cabinet meeting.
hasn’t all that saul alinsky training been useful for you?
59 Independent // Nov 20, 2009 at 5:17 pm
ahh, enter stage left… the newest troll of the frum forum troll tribe… mr face.
you been outed already, mr face. you really need to get a new identity and character.
60 Independent // Nov 20, 2009 at 5:19 pm
kanzeon… balconesfault… mr face.
a triple troll threat
who sputter and fret
while making their comments have sway
they’ve met up their match
he’s dispatched the pack
and the trolls go cryin away.
61 ottovbvs // Nov 20, 2009 at 5:46 pm
…….Two adults from the Bush AG’s office give us a helping of reality:
“[T]here is no question about the legitimacy of U.S. federal courts to incapacitate terrorists. Many of Holder’s critics appear to have forgotten that the Bush administration used civilian courts to put away dozens of terrorists, including “shoe bomber” Richard Reid; al-Qaeda agent Jose Padilla; “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh; the Lackawanna Six; and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was prosecuted for the same conspiracy for which Mohammed is likely to be charged. Many of these terrorists are locked in a supermax prison in Colorado, never to be seen again,” – Jim Comey and Jack Goldsmith, deputy attorney general and assistant attorney general under George W. Bush, respectively.
62 ottovbvs // Nov 20, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Independent // Nov 20, 2009 at 5:19 pm
kanzeon… balconesfault… mr face.
a triple troll threat
who sputter and fret
while making their comments have sway
they’ve met up their match
he’s dispatched the pack
and the trolls go cryin away.
…………..What’s the antonym of an “adult”
63 cpanza // Nov 20, 2009 at 7:05 pm
I see this thread has grown in length quite a bit but hasn’t advanced very much. The outrage-o-meter is ratcheted up pretty high with some of the folks here.
So much for discussion of the actual issues. Let’s just be outraged, it feels so good.
Hey Frum, what’s the point of this site again?
When this site started, it actually seemed pretty promising for a left-oriented guy like me to read some actually interesting discussion between people who disagreed but still seemed to have civil exchanges.
Somewhere along the way, the outrage took over, as it always seem to for typical all-too-human reasons.
64 sinz54 // Nov 20, 2009 at 8:27 pm
rbottoms:
He’s only been in office 10 months.
Times change.
Examples:
LBJ winning a landslide in 1964 and then quitting in 1968
Nixon winning a landslide re-election in 1972 and resigning two years later
Carter winning in 1976 and losing in a landslide four years later
Like these other guys, Obama has a lot further to fall in the polls over the next year or two. As we say in the stock market, he has plenty of downside risk.
65 sinz54 // Nov 20, 2009 at 8:29 pm
ottovbs:
If you’re right about the KSM trial,
you have nothing to worry about.
If you’re wrong,
we’re going to have Obama’s political scalp over this.
He’ll never survive it.
Even congressional Dems, terrified of losing their own seats, will break with him over it.
66 mickster99 // Nov 20, 2009 at 9:24 pm
I am of the opinion that if civil courts work in the UK, Spain, and works as it has in the USA (McVeigh, Rudolph, the Blind Sheik, Richard Reid et al) it will certainly work for KSM a most certainly insane schizo who could probably plead insanity. It seems that the only purpose of this opinion pieces to make paranoid rightwingers even more paranoid. Or political hacks even more hackish. Webb included. I also don’t understand the hysteria about reading OBL his miranda rights or miranda rights in general. The right to an attorney is written in the constitution which the paranoid right is constantly waving so vigorously.
67 Socrates // Nov 20, 2009 at 10:30 pm
I am in favor of having an “abuse” flag on the posts so we can report those who abuse this forum by attacking other bloggers; or having some a moderator to curb this practice. I enjoy this site because some people here are knowledgeable and offer reasonable arguments. Yet, instead of offering decent responses, some just attack and attack; they just go ideological. It is like Wall Street going deregulation! It’s anarchy. be thoughtful and respectful, folks.
Now, as soon as I say this, some one will undoubtedly flame me!
Returning to the topic: sure, this is a controversial topic; terrorism is a controversial subject. Holder’s critics make good points when point out issues with Miranda right, the criteria for choosing trial venue (why try some with military tribunal and others with civilian courts), and the possibility for getting a fair trial. These are legitimate arguments. The rest is just full of hot air.
68 Reason60 // Nov 21, 2009 at 1:44 am
I am just wondering what will happen when KSM doesn’t actually fly up to the ceiling and shoot death rays out of his eyes.
I for one will be disappointed.
69 Reason60 // Nov 21, 2009 at 1:46 am
Socrates, I could go with classifying them all as prisoners of war, and treating them that way; or criminal prisoners, and treating them that way;
My beef is that we are treating them as shadow prisoners, without status, or covered under any sort of law whatsoever. This leaves them entirely at the mercy of the whim of the King, er government, which is exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent.
70 Socrates // Nov 21, 2009 at 2:18 am
Reason60:
I agree with you: classify them either way and put them on trial.
The problem, IMHO, is the lack of evidence in some cases to determine either way, or even to bring them to trial. In these cases, we seem to be caught in a bind: we can neither try them nor release them. Perhaps this explains why in seven years the previous administration could brought only three to trial with the military tribunal.
One last thing: Isn’t the title of this article ironic: Holder will be held accountable. Does that mean that others who were not held accountable? Who were responsible for this whole mess in the first place?
71 MI-GOPer // Nov 21, 2009 at 9:29 am
AutomaticBS, the antonym of adult is “ottovbvs”… honest, you are referenced in the dictionary that way. I thought Independent’s poetry was a nice break from the Chicagothug styled gangpiling on that all you trolls were doing yesterday.
While the spinning and clucking by the Troll Tribe here may be a cute distraction, the thread and article’s original thrust was that Eric Stedman-Holder may one day be held accountable for his failure to grasp the simple concept that putting on a show trial won’t make Americans feel any better about their once-glorious, hope & change agent president. It is a bad decision and wanting it to be something else, no matter how badly needed by the democrats, will not excuse away Stedman-Holder’s sins.
Richard Klingler makes the most sense when he says above: “And, the Obama administration’s rationale for providing a jury trial for the worst war criminals, while reserving to the military commissions lesser al-Qaeda members, is impossible to discern or defend. The administration’s choice also undermines our criminal justice system. Already, the President has publicly stated that KSM is guilty and should be put to death….”
The Troll Tribe can spin the thread anyway they want –and it’s not to hard when they’ve admitted to creating multiple characters, multiple names in order to achieve the end goal of disrupting or derailing debate here –on this website “…dedicated to the modernization and renewal of the Republican party and the conservative movement” per David Frum’s words.
But the thread’s mainpoint remains: the Obama Administration’s decision is a bad one, indefensible and morally corrupt. Eric Stedman-Holder is challenged again on his own ethical conduct in the matter. And the decision proves this Administration is a radical Left, pro-ACLU politics-above-all-else organization.
72 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 9:32 am
sinz54 // Nov 20, 2009 at 8:29 pm
” If you’re wrong,
we’re going to have Obama’s political scalp over this.
He’ll never survive it.
Even congressional Dems, terrified of losing their own seats, will break with him over it.”
…….Another prayer for disaster to befall our country…….why are you so filled with hate against this country?
73 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 9:34 am
MI-GOPer // Nov 21, 2009 at 9:29 am
……what was the antonym of adult again?
74 balconesfault // Nov 21, 2009 at 9:46 am
Independent: –in fact, they don’t play games like you did here of claiming to be (a conservative) when you are not.
Ah – there’s the rub.
I never claimed to be a conservative (although I most certainly one 30 years ago). I claimed to have certain conservative principles … I believe the phrase I used that sent you all into paroxysms was “the Conservative in me”.
Yes, there is some Conservative in me. There’s also some Libertarian, even though I don’t wholly embrace doctrinaire Libertarianism. There is a lot of Liberalism that I disagree with, specifically the idea that we have a “right” to have many things provided by Government.
When someone makes a comment like “the Conservative in me” … that is actually an outreach, an attempt to understand that a lot of these issues span ideological divides, to give you an opportunity to show me what is not conservative about my proposal. Instead you treat ever discussion with the same maturity as a football fan who’s convinced that his team is the best, and the other team sucks, is and ever will be.
75 balconesfault // Nov 21, 2009 at 9:51 am
and it’s not to hard when they’ve admitted to creating multiple characters, multiple names in order to achieve the end goal of disrupting or derailing debate here –on this website “…dedicated to the modernization and renewal of the Republican party and the conservative movement” per David Frum’s words
Does this multiple character thing exist anywhere except in MI-GOPers and Independents imaginations?
76 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:02 am
balconesfault // Nov 21, 2009 at 9:51 am
“Does this multiple character thing exist anywhere except in MI-GOPers and Independents imaginations?”
………these folks are screwy…..entertaining but screwy……a bit like the lunatics in Bedlam whose antics the fashionable used to pay gaolers to watch
77 sinz54 // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:19 am
ottovbs:
As a patriotic American,
I sincerely hope that the KSM trial goes well, and that KSM gets what he deserves. We conservatives will be deeply saddened if the KSM trial doesn’t go well and turns into another O.J. Simpton type farce.
To alleviate our sadness,
we’ll just take Obama’s political scalp as a consolation prize.
Oh, and Holder’s too.
78 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:29 am
sinz54 // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:19 am
……..actually you’re deeply unpatriotic since you’re clearly hoping for some disaster just as you’ve published loads of posts clearly praying for economic failure……..it’s a rather sick form of nihilism but it’s basically what the Republican party had been reduced to today……..a very weird outlook on life if I may say so………back in 1944 you’d probably have been hoping for the failure of D Day so it would embarrass FDR
79 sinz54 // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:33 am
Reason60:
That’s not true,
and I wish that liberals who know nothing of the history of war would stop claiming that.
In the Bush Administration’s view, and in my view, there are not TWO categories of prisoners, but THREE.
1. Common (civilian) criminals. This includes, for example, that fellow who blew up a civilian airliner in 1954–NOT to terrorize, but to collect on the life insurance policy of his mother who was on that plane. He was a common criminal, not a terrorist.
2. Soldiers of a foreign army, carrying ID or uniforms or insignia identifying them as being part of an army. These are Prisoners of War (POWs), entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention which America signed.
3. Civilian combatants or “partisans.” In many wars, civilians would take up arms to resist the invaders. These were considered civilian partisans. And they were not entitled to the same treatment as POWs. Because the laws of war were designed to keep civilians off the battlefield. Refusing to give civilians the rights of POWs was deliberate, a deterrent against civilians taking up arms and leaving war to professional armies to carry out.
Now, ALL the members of al-Qaeda are civilians, obviously. They’re not commandos of a foreign army. And they’re not blowing up stuff for personal gain. So they fall into category 3.
Liberals are taking the European position, that civilian combatants should have Geneva Convention protections. That has no justification or precedent in the laws of war. It wasn’t the case in any European war going back to the Franco-Prussian War. And it would encourage mass terrorism–soldiers taking off their uniforms and hiding among civilians to shoot at enemy troops.
Civilian partisans had NO RIGHTS in wartime, period. NONE. When caught, they could expect to be immediately stood up against a wall and shot by firing squad. There is ample precedent in military history for summary executions of all al-Qaeda members without trial.
That the U.S. has not treated captured detainees that way is a testament to our restraint and forbearance.
80 balconesfault // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:35 am
Sinz – and in that sense, you are a true conservative – your first hope is that the trial goes well, and demonstrates to the world American values while locking away or obtaining the death sentence for someone who truly deserves it.
If anyone is really hoping for a farce, because that would be better for the Republican Party in the next couple elections, it would be evidence that they are more partisan than conservative.
81 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:58 am
sinz54 // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:33 am
” Civilian partisans had NO RIGHTS in wartime, period. NONE. When caught, they could expect to be immediately stood up against a wall and shot by firing squad. There is ample precedent in military history for summary executions of all al-Qaeda members without trial.”
……..Yes a lot of this went on in Belgium in 1914, and Poland, Greece, Russia, Yugoslavia, France and Italy in 1939-45………we’re still trying the odd perpetrator left alive today because contrary to what you say the Geneva conventions do provide some protections for civilians…….and it all could hardly have been said to redound to the credit of the German state
82 sinz54 // Nov 21, 2009 at 1:20 pm
mickster99:
How many times do I have to repeat that al-Qaeda got their hands on sensitive information as the result of the 1990s trials? The right of discovery makes it difficult to withhold sensitive information from the defense, if that information is needed by the jury to make their case.
And if KSM pleads insanity and the jury accepted that, that would represent a disastrous failure of Holder’s policy. It would mean that KSM could not be executed–and might not even end up in SuperMax. He would end up in a mental hospital getting the best of medical care at taxpayer’s expense. That’s not much punishment for the mass slaughter of 3,000 men, women, and children.
In that case,
we’ll get Obama’s political scalp.
And Holder’s too.
Liberals might have to flee for their lives from more conservative neighborhoods.
To use some of Otto’s words:
This I would find mildly amusing.
83 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 1:27 pm
82 sinz54 // Nov 21, 2009 at 1:20 pm
” Liberals might have to flee for their lives from more conservative neighborhoods.”
…….More of your personal brand of patriotism?……..in fact apart from a bit of exitement when their trial opens and closes it will grimble on for a couple of months largely un-noticed by most people although we’re going to hear a lot about the illegality practised by the Bush admin in a court of law most of which is going to prove to have been unnecssary as these guys will get convicted on evidence not obtained by torture etc.
84 teabag // Nov 21, 2009 at 1:30 pm
” Liberals might have to flee for their lives from more conservative neighborhoods.”
WOW, how un-American. Why do you hate your country?
85 balconesfault // Nov 21, 2009 at 1:43 pm
This I would find mildly amusing.
In this case, a very poor choice of words.
Ironic, perhaps. Amusing – the breakdown of the rule of law to the point where people fear for their lives because of their political opinions in America? Perhaps to a reactionary.
86 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 2:00 pm
balconesfault // Nov 21, 2009 at 1:43 pm
“Amusing – the breakdown of the rule of law to the point where people fear for their lives because of their political opinions in America? Perhaps to a reactionary.”
……….Not “reaction” which actually seeks stability, but nihilism which doesn’t……..Republicanism at every level from congressional reps promoting boycotts and making outbursts, to blogs by rank and filers like Sinz……has morphed into pure nihilism……..this guy would really be ecstatic if say a terrorist bomb was let off outside the courthouse and killed 20 people with the more kids the better because that would enable him and his party to get Obama’s scalp…….and that’s what is really important………as many have observed these people are essentially indistinguishable from anarchists from the left
87 balconesfault // Nov 21, 2009 at 2:11 pm
otto – I think that for the most part, you have Sinz wrong. Sinz is absolutely concerned about preventing attacks on America – and to the extent he favors Republicans, it is because he holds the (imo false) opinion that Republicans do a much better job of this.
But there are certainly others who fit that description – who really are hoping for an attack on America that can be blamed on Obama.
88 MI-GOPer // Nov 21, 2009 at 4:43 pm
BlankHead asks: “Does this multiple character thing exist anywhere except in MI-GOPers and Independents imaginations.”
Answer: yes, in reality… but you wouldn’t agree to the truth because it defeats your game here to annoy, irritate, incite, disrupt and distract from the blog’s stated goal: “FrumForum.com is a site edited by David Frum, dedicated to the modernization and renewal of the Republican party and the conservative movement.”
Which you’ll always ignore because it confirms your Troll status on this site… even if, according to your newest spin, you’ve got just a little conservative in you and didn’t intend to misled readers in your earlier claim to be a conservative. Ummmm, yeah… right…. let’s go with that.
89 MI-GOPer // Nov 21, 2009 at 4:49 pm
AutomaticBS decries, with fake outrage: “these folks are screwy…”
And acting as the troll on a conservative GOP site dedicated to rebuilding the Party and movement makes you sane, automaticBS? I think you’re the guy with more screws loose… I’d never waste my precious time posting on a far Left website… unless it was for the gay community.
To spend so much time here and be so unconstructive… that’s how I would define screwy for you and your Troll Tribe… but then, I don’t get how you gain a kick from all this… unless your life is truly as lonely and miserable as it sounds.
Sad really. And pathetic. So unconstructive of you and your Troll Tribing pals.
90 Kanzeon // Nov 21, 2009 at 5:57 pm
sinz54:
“How many times do I have to repeat that al-Qaeda got their hands on sensitive information as the result of the 1990s trials?”
No one’s going to be convinced by you simply repeating it. My guess is you got it from Krauthammer.
Check out page 17 of this document:
http://brennan.3cdn.net/6a0e5de414927df95e_lbm6iy66c.pdf
That source has been repeatedly debunked.
91 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 6:53 pm
balconesfault // Nov 21, 2009 at 2:11 pm
” otto – I think that for the most part, you have Sinz wrong. ”
……..You’re being more charitable than me…..I suggest you read his posts on this topic a little more closely…..you can almost hear him licking his lips in anticipation……it’s totally deplorable
92 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 6:59 pm
MI-GOPer // Nov 21, 2009 at 4:49 pm
“FrumForum.com is a site edited by David Frum, dedicated to the modernization and renewal of the Republican party and the conservative movement.”
……..Unfortunately what you don’t get is that your particular brand of screwiness has no electoral appeal outside of fellow screwballs who represent maybe 25% of the electorate
“but then, I don’t get how you gain a kick from all this”
……..Schadenfreude……it’s screwballs like you who are responsible for the predicament the GOP is in……the sooner you are banished the better
93 MI-GOPer // Nov 21, 2009 at 11:01 pm
AutomaticBSer writes: “You’re (BlankHead) being more charitable than me…..I suggest you read his (sinz54) posts on this topic a little more closely…..you can almost hear him licking his lips in anticipation……it’s totally deplorable”
I don’t there’s anyone on this site, familiar with sinz54’s commentary, that would agree with your harshly partisan, suspect and incredible assessment of sinz54.
But then, automaticBSer, we’ve come to expect stupid things from you… you are, afterall, still the Village Idiot on this site. Someone toss the troll a ferret, will you? He’s needy for attention –any attention is sufficient.
94 sinz54 // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:58 am
balconesfault:
That is exactly correct.
Republicans have one thing going for them: They really believe America is MORALLY better than all those we’ve ever fought and are fighting today. It’s real hard to fight an implacable ruthless enemy when you’re paralyzed by neurotic guilt about your own country, as too many of your fellow liberals are.
If the trial of KSM turns into a fiasco, the United States will suffer tremendously. Can we all agree on that? You too, ottovbs? It’s not going to be a good thing for this country if that trial flops.
BUT: As your very own Rahm Emanuel said, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”
IF the KSM trial flops, there’s nothing that we can do about it. So there’s no reason that we conservatives can’t take advantage of it.
And we will.
We’ll hang that fiasco around Obama’s neck.
95 ottovbvs // Nov 22, 2009 at 10:37 am
sinz54 // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:58 am
“And we will.
We’ll hang that fiasco around Obama’s neck.”
…….As I said licking his lips in the hope of an “incident”…..the more fatalities the better……deplorable
“Republicans have one thing going for them: They really believe America is MORALLY better than all those we’ve ever fought and are fighting today. It’s real hard to fight an implacable ruthless enemy when you’re paralyzed by neurotic guilt about your own country, as too many of your fellow liberals are.
If the trial of KSM turns into a fiasco, the United States will suffer tremendously. Can we all agree on that? You too, ottovbs? It’s not going to be a good thing for this country if that trial flops.”
……You’ve got the paranoia bad buddy………Eric Holder is paralyzed by neurotic guilt (not a lawyer with total integrity and respect for the law)…….the trial is going to be a fiasco (after all those military commissions turned into such a huge success)
……Unfortunatly Sinz although on the surface you are bit more restrained than total fruitcakes like mi-goper you’re just as consumed with hate and anger…..it’s a sad commentary on the state of today’s GOP and a clear demonstration of why I and so many others have jumped ship.
96 balconesfault // Nov 22, 2009 at 7:30 pm
sinz: Republicans have one thing going for them: They really believe America is MORALLY better than all those we’ve ever fought and are fighting today.
And they believe that no matter what America does.
97 ottovbvs // Nov 22, 2009 at 8:02 pm
balconesfault // Nov 22, 2009 at 7:30 pm
“And they believe that no matter what America does.”
………they believe that torture, secret prisons, illegal kidnaps, are morally right because were doing it so that endows it with a special christian character
98 balconesfault // Nov 22, 2009 at 8:35 pm
so that endows it with a special christian character
Not really. You don’t have to go there.
The idea becomes that since the US is the most moral nation on the earth, it is necessary to preserve the US in order to preserve morality on the earth.
However, our enemies use immoral tactics – and if we do not reduce our standards of morality while fighting our enemies, we will lose (we’ll set aside right now what “losing” means when we’re spending a trillion a year on national defense).
Thus, any immoral act is inherently moral.
99 ottovbvs // Nov 23, 2009 at 10:34 am
balconesfault // Nov 22, 2009 at 8:35 pm
” Not really. You don’t have to go there.”
…..I’m afraid I don’t agree…..most of them equate morality with christianity, it’s inconceivable to them that aspects of the muslim religion are highly moral…..or that that atheistic humanism can be highly moral
100 sinz54 // Nov 23, 2009 at 10:51 am
From today’s Washington Post:
I hope all of America’s left-wingers enjoy hearing their own “negative assessment of American foreign policy” being echoed by a bunch of Islamist terrorists. Let’s hear Khalid Sheikh Mohammed attack U.S. support for Israel, globalization, and hey, maybe he’ll even mention Vietnam.
101 balconesfault // Nov 23, 2009 at 12:17 pm
I don’t see any reason why the presiding judge would allow testimony as to “why they did it”. Unless “why they did it” could be related to a claim of self-defense, it has no place in the determination of guilt or innocence for the plaintiffs.
If the claim is that they need to make their pitch prior to sentencing, in order to claim mitigating circumstances, the court can easily have a closed sentencing hearing following the conviction.
Anyway … none of us are going to be “hearing” any of the testimony, unless we can somehow attend in person. There won’t be any TV or radio feed.
You must log in to post a comment.