Comments on: Moving the Terror Trials http://www.frumforum.com/moving-the-terror-trials Building a conservatism that can win again Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:50:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: jreb http://www.frumforum.com/moving-the-terror-trials/comment-page-1#comment-82156 jreb Mon, 08 Feb 2010 03:49:19 +0000 http://www.frumforum.com/?p=21720#comment-82156 Personally I think these scumbags need to be put to death, however I think the victims and the families of these victims have waited too long for justice and I can't see waiting another possibly ten years and spending up to two billion dollars on these scumbags. I'm for the quickest and cheapest way to bring justice, if that means military tribunals, let's get it done. Personally I think these scumbags need to be put to death, however I think the victims and the families of these victims have waited too long for justice and I can’t see waiting another possibly ten years and spending up to two billion dollars on these scumbags. I’m for the quickest and cheapest way to bring justice, if that means military tribunals, let’s get it done.

]]> By: sinz54 http://www.frumforum.com/moving-the-terror-trials/comment-page-1#comment-82122 sinz54 Sun, 07 Feb 2010 17:51:29 +0000 http://www.frumforum.com/?p=21720#comment-82122 Reality Chick: The rules of military law being what they are, it may be easier to convict KSM in a military tribunal--but harder to convince the judges to apply the death penalty. Military law isn't as strong on so-called "capital murder." To apply the death penalty, you have to prove that the defendant <i>directly</i> caused those murders. Well, those 19 guys who directly caused the murders on 9/11/2001 are all dead, obviously. KSM didn't directly murder anyone. Of course, if we set up a special military tribunal for KSM, we can adjust those rules. How about substituting this new rule: "Any Muslim found guilty of terrorism will be executed." That should cover it! Reality Chick:

The rules of military law being what they are,
it may be easier to convict KSM in a military tribunal–but harder to convince the judges to apply the death penalty.

Military law isn’t as strong on so-called “capital murder.” To apply the death penalty, you have to prove that the defendant directly caused those murders. Well, those 19 guys who directly caused the murders on 9/11/2001 are all dead, obviously. KSM didn’t directly murder anyone.

Of course, if we set up a special military tribunal for KSM, we can adjust those rules. How about substituting this new rule: “Any Muslim found guilty of terrorism will be executed.” That should cover it!

]]> By: sinz54 http://www.frumforum.com/moving-the-terror-trials/comment-page-1#comment-82121 sinz54 Sun, 07 Feb 2010 17:48:30 +0000 http://www.frumforum.com/?p=21720#comment-82121 teabag: <blockquote> You have no position to argue on the legitimacy or otherwise of trials as you believe in the Stalinist firing squad. </blockquote> FYI, civilian partisans fighting on behalf of the enemy, when caught, were usually shot without trial. That was true going all the way back to the Franco-Prussian War, when civilian partisans were known as "francs-tireurs" (literally: "free shooters"). Captured civilian partisans were NEVER granted the same rights as captured soldiers. Military history is on my side in this. But since that position is too politically incorrect for even Bush to have touched it, I am forced to consider legalistic means for dealing with KSM and other captured terrorists. I'll say it again: There is no benefit to giving KSM a trial in civilian court, if the outcome of the trial is preordained, if the POTUS passed judgment on it ahead of time as the Obama administration has done here. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60R7DS20100131 President Clinton didn't pass judgment on Timothy McVeigh ahead of time. He knew better. teabag: You have no position to argue on the legitimacy or otherwise of trials as you believe in the Stalinist firing squad.
FYI, civilian partisans fighting on behalf of the enemy, when caught, were usually shot without trial. That was true going all the way back to the Franco-Prussian War, when civilian partisans were known as “francs-tireurs” (literally: “free shooters”).

Captured civilian partisans were NEVER granted the same rights as captured soldiers. Military history is on my side in this.

But since that position is too politically incorrect for even Bush to have touched it, I am forced to consider legalistic means for dealing with KSM and other captured terrorists.

I’ll say it again: There is no benefit to giving KSM a trial in civilian court, if the outcome of the trial is preordained, if the POTUS passed judgment on it ahead of time as the Obama administration has done here.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60R7DS20100131

President Clinton didn’t pass judgment on Timothy McVeigh ahead of time. He knew better.

]]> By: Reality Chick http://www.frumforum.com/moving-the-terror-trials/comment-page-1#comment-82078 Reality Chick Sun, 07 Feb 2010 03:42:58 +0000 http://www.frumforum.com/?p=21720#comment-82078 Military tribunal at Gitmo. Sounds like a capital idea! Military tribunal at Gitmo. Sounds like a capital idea!

]]> By: teabag http://www.frumforum.com/moving-the-terror-trials/comment-page-1#comment-82011 teabag Sat, 06 Feb 2010 17:41:01 +0000 http://www.frumforum.com/?p=21720#comment-82011 Sinz, you don't believe in trails or tribunals remember? Your stated position is to Quote. "Shoot them as quickly and as cheaply as possible" You have no position to argue on the legitimacy or otherwise of trials as you believe in the Stalinist firing squad. Sinz, you don’t believe in trails or tribunals remember?

Your stated position is to

Quote.

“Shoot them as quickly and as cheaply as possible”

You have no position to argue on the legitimacy or otherwise of trials as you believe in the Stalinist firing squad.

]]> By: sinz54 http://www.frumforum.com/moving-the-terror-trials/comment-page-1#comment-82009 sinz54 Sat, 06 Feb 2010 17:24:54 +0000 http://www.frumforum.com/?p=21720#comment-82009 Michael Hayden: <blockquote> how can it be a fair trial if the President and the Attorney General already came out and said KSM was going to be found guilty, even though our system presumes KSM to be assumed innocent. [Press Secretary Gibbs even said that KSM would be executed.] Further, if he is declared innocent they made it clear that he will be kept in jail. This would seem to undercut one of the stated purposes of a civilian trial which is to showcase the American civilian justice system. </blockquote> The main argument by liberals--that applying the rule of law by a civilian trial of KSM would show the world how much more "civilized" we are than those al-Qaeda barbarians--has been wrecked by the statements coming from the Obama Administration. They're telling us that this trial is just a show trial, a mere formality prior to KSM's execution. And what if KSM is acquitted? The Obama administration has said that he will continue to remain incarcerated anyway. So the trial is worthless. No one in the world is going to be impressed by a show trial with a preordained outcome. I can already see the editorials and columns in The Guardian by Human Rights First denouncing the trial. The only thing that would impress them is a trial in which there is a real possibility of acquittal. And that they are not going to get, because the Democrats don't want to be swept out of office in a landslide. If KSM were acquitted like O.J. Simpson, that would be the end of the Democratic Party for a long long time. Michael Hayden: how can it be a fair trial if the President and the Attorney General already came out and said KSM was going to be found guilty, even though our system presumes KSM to be assumed innocent. [Press Secretary Gibbs even said that KSM would be executed.] Further, if he is declared innocent they made it clear that he will be kept in jail. This would seem to undercut one of the stated purposes of a civilian trial which is to showcase the American civilian justice system.
The main argument by liberals–that applying the rule of law by a civilian trial of KSM would show the world how much more “civilized” we are than those al-Qaeda barbarians–has been wrecked by the statements coming from the Obama Administration. They’re telling us that this trial is just a show trial, a mere formality prior to KSM’s execution. And what if KSM is acquitted? The Obama administration has said that he will continue to remain incarcerated anyway. So the trial is worthless.

No one in the world is going to be impressed by a show trial with a preordained outcome.

I can already see the editorials and columns in The Guardian by Human Rights First denouncing the trial.

The only thing that would impress them is a trial in which there is a real possibility of acquittal. And that they are not going to get, because the Democrats don’t want to be swept out of office in a landslide.

If KSM were acquitted like O.J. Simpson, that would be the end of the Democratic Party for a long long time.

]]> By: teabag http://www.frumforum.com/moving-the-terror-trials/comment-page-1#comment-81994 teabag Sat, 06 Feb 2010 16:22:54 +0000 http://www.frumforum.com/?p=21720#comment-81994 " It was good enough for George Washington, Lincoln, and FDR but somehow it is not good enough for Obama. " Apparently military tribunal were not good enough for George Bush as only one person out of the thousands held has been tried and convicted by Military tribunal where as 300 International and domestic terrorists have been tried and convicted in civilian courts. 300 to 1 not a good score from your viewpoint but good for the country. ” It was good enough for George Washington, Lincoln, and FDR but somehow it is not good enough for Obama. ”

Apparently military tribunal were not good enough for George Bush as only one person out of the thousands held has been tried and convicted by Military tribunal where as 300 International and domestic terrorists have been tried and convicted in civilian courts. 300 to 1 not a good score from your viewpoint but good for the country.

]]> By: teabag http://www.frumforum.com/moving-the-terror-trials/comment-page-1#comment-81993 teabag Sat, 06 Feb 2010 16:19:43 +0000 http://www.frumforum.com/?p=21720#comment-81993 You quote John Yoo!! A thoroughly discredited Bush lackey? Please get serious. You quote John Yoo!! A thoroughly discredited Bush lackey? Please get serious.

]]>