you are a sly, albeit witless, troll teabag. no wonder so many people here find you abhorrent and annoying.

you picked teabag for the same reason your buddies in flame use teabagger in the democrat underground… to keep alive a sexually disgusting slur.

sir, you should be shamed; but for that, you’d need character.

Let me follow your logic. My argument sounds like John Yoo’s; John Yoo didn’t do much trial work; therefore, I am wrong that this will be a big mistake. That totally makes sense! Thanks!

As far as “most experts” go, I’m sorry, but the fact that you can find some law professors who (surprise!) think that glorified lawyers in black robes can make national security decisions is, to say the least, unmoving. The way this would work is this: the defense requests all the information the State has—which they should do—and then the feds make a claim of national security for some, or most, of what the defense wants. The district court judge will then take the objections and decide which intelligence should not be admitted to trial/turned over because it threatens national security interests. How can anyone argue with a straight face that this is not a farce? A judge, a man or woman with a J.D. and some years as a lawyer, will now be forced to determine which bits of evidence threaten intel sources in Pakistan and Afghanistan and God knows where else. How on Earth does this seem right to you? A judge will know that Sources A, Bm but not C in Pakistan will be comprimised, even though the feds say he will, so Source C’s info must be disclosed. What training does a judge have to make such decisions? Zero. Which is why, in accordance with the Hamdan decision and the Geneva Conventions, Congress set up military commissions specifically engineered to deal with these individuals. Barack/Holder are using these commissions for other detainees—so I guess they distrust the American justice system just like John Yoo, right?

You ask: “Why are people like him and John Yoo so distrustful of the American justice system?” I don’t distrust the American justice system. I’m a lawyer, I’ve argued in criminal matters *for defendants* at the trial and appellate levels, and I think our system of justice is the best in the world. But listen very closely: it was not designed for the KSMs of the world, but for murderers, rapists, thieves, drug dealers, and white-collar criminals surveiled and apprehended by American law enforcement. It’s fantastic dealing with the criminals; we’ve spent literally 100s of years tweaking and balancing the rights of the accused and the needs of justice and security. But the system is simply not set up for prosecuting terrorists (or even wrongly-accused terrorists) captured in foreign countries by the military.

As far as the terrorist threat, I’m shocked that people would be so dismissive of these concerns. But after your flimsy defense of the KSM/Holder trial decision, I’m not surprised.

It seems some people here think that trying criminals is optional. Mr. Mohammed and whoever else was involved in 9/11 are exactly that—criminals, because 9/11 was a crime (of massive proportions) and nothing else. I know a lot of people would opt for just putting a bullet in their necks, but it’s not in the book.

Your argument sounds a lot like John Yoo’s argument in the WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574537370665832850.html#articleTabs%3Darticle). Despite your “scholarly research” and diligence, your argument is not substantiated by facts. John Yoo is not an expert trial lawyer and the example he cited was in 1993, sixteen years ago. Nowadays, most experts would argue that we have a judicial system that is more adequate to handle intelligence matters (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/11/risk-worth-taking-civilian-trials-for.php)

As for the “security” argument, I really don’t see the problem. Are you saying that the terrorists will attack again? if that is the case, what has stopped them from attacking so far? While I am not saying that there is no risk, the “security” argument is basically a fear mongering tactic.

Many people who vehemently oppose this trial seem to have a vested interest in the case. If things go as predicted, VP Dick Chenney will be accusing Pres. Obama of being soft on the terrorists. Why are people like him and John Yoo so distrustful of the American justice system?

You are very welcome. Teabag is a vessel for the containment of tea leaves during the brewing process. Only a Conservative Frenchman could call that innocent item of daily usage an obscenity.

The Moussaoui trial lasted for FOUR years and gave him all the opportunities he could ask for to spew his hate throughout the ordeal. He plead guilty for God only knows what reason. He’s now serving a life sentence without parole; he’s not facing execution, so you’re wrong factually. (Surprise!) Secondly, he was tried in the Eastern District of VA, not NYC. (Wrong again!) The trial never got to the stage where the feds would have had to let his defense attorneys crawl through the evidence. He was tried in the U.S. because he was captured in the U.S.; KSM was captured in Pakistan, which, you might remember, is not the U.S. And lastly, he was a lower-level co-conspirator; KSM was the mastermind. So, yeah, perfect analogy!

But it is I who am “wetting my bed.”

Rudi, that super lawyer was all for bringing Musouri (sp)to trial in NYS and was delighted that the American legal system worked so well. Of course then is then and now is a Democratic administration.

You too I see are wetting your bed over something so simple. Try them (they will plead guilty) then execute them. The end.