TrophyHusband 0 #51 November 15, 2009 Quote...which really is separate from what you said above. But let's move past that. Neither you nor I know the evidence against (or in favor of) most of the individual detainees, nor do we know the circumstances or basis of their original detention. Sadly, many people believe that the police would never arrest someone unless he is guilty. Unfortunately, I see the same mind-set being applied to people detained by the military - the detainee must be guilty, or the military would never have detained them. And that's just not a lawful standard to apply. i was just coming back to address this issue. lets forget about whether or not i believe they are guilty. would it be safe to assume that obama and holder have looked at the evidence and they are convinced of guilt? i think they have. if obama believes they are guilty of planning the attack, doesn't he have an obligation to put them in the venue that gives them the highest chances of both a fair trial and a conviction? do you he has done that? "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #52 November 15, 2009 QuoteGITMO is not a photo op, it's just one of the messes inherited from the previous mess. Just keep singin' it man...the song is already worn out, but I think it's cute that you hold on to this mantra. The day President Obama signed an EO to close the detention facility, he made it his mess. This action makes this issue, President Obama's and DA Holder's. Bringing them to NYC wasn't inherited. I won't sit here and say President Bush's team had it all figured out, because they clearly didn't, and they let too many factors f*ck with the situation in gitmo. Bottom line, these guys were caught in theater, by military assets. These should be settle by military tribunal.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #53 November 15, 2009 Quote Wrong! They have to be tried, and then either convicted or acquitted, based upon the evidence. A trial with even the slightest hint of a pre-decided outcome, in which the trial is being conducted for the sake of form and not substance, is no trial at all. History is replete with examples of sham trials. The US should never be a party to such things. Quote i think you and i are in agreement (or close to it) that a sham trial that convicts them would be every bit as bad, if not worse than a trial that allows them to go free (assuming of course they are guilty). the other day, holder all but guarenteed a conviction. did you hear his press conference and if so do you detect any hints of a pre-decided outcome? Quote*we can argue endlessly over what constitutes "hostilities", but do we really need to get into that? probably not. Absolutely we do... Quote i agree with you, i was really just trying to keep the discussion moving along since this isn't the path being taken and we both agre that it isn't a viable option. thanks for your answers "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #54 November 15, 2009 Quote these guys were caught in theater, by military assets. These should be settle by military tribunal. In that case, I propose that the foxes conduct tribunals of suspected chickens in henhouses. No lack of partiality there, is there? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #55 November 15, 2009 Quotethe other day, holder all but guarenteed a conviction. did you hear his press conference and if so do you detect any hints of a pre-decided outcome? Yes, and I found it revolting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #56 November 15, 2009 Quote Quote these guys were caught in theater, by military assets. These should be settle by military tribunal. In that case, I propose that the foxes conduct tribunals of suspected chickens in henhouses. No lack of partiality there, is there? Spoken from someone that clearly has never been in attendance of a military court. The military court, I would argue, is better balanced, more pragmatic, more dispassionate than a civilian court. Plus, against back-drops like OJ, and Mousaoui, far more professional too.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #57 November 15, 2009 Quote Bottom line, these guys were caught in theater, by military assets. These should be settle by military tribunal. If that is the metric, what if they weren’t? I.e., what if they were not captured by military assets and not captured in theater? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #58 November 15, 2009 QuoteSpoken from someone that clearly has never been in attendance of a military court. I thought we were playing the ball and not the player, Max. In any event, you're wrong. There may be more decorum in military courts, but that's not the be-all-and-end-all. I wouldn't give up the civilian jury and constitutional protections afforded in an American civilian court, for a panel of officers, the procedures and the rules of evidence in a military tribunal, in a coon's age. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #59 November 15, 2009 Andy - thanks for your calm and thought-out replies throughout this thread! And thanks to [TrophyHusband] for his questions. Hard questions are good. They improve my thinking. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #60 November 15, 2009 And this entire issue brought up by Giuliana on FoxNews is just how much the Republican party wants Obama to fail. That is all this is about. End of story. It's disgusting.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #61 November 15, 2009 Quote Just keep singin' it man...the song is already worn out, but I think it's cute that you hold on to this mantra. The day President Obama signed an EO to close the detention facility, he made it his mess. But the inherited interest rate issue wasn't Reagan's fault - the inherited GITMO is Obama's fault? Now I get it. Quote This action makes this issue, President Obama's and DA Holder's. Bringing them to NYC wasn't inherited. I won't sit here and say President Bush's team had it all figured out, because they clearly didn't, and they let too many factors f*ck with the situation in gitmo. Baby steps: since GWB didn't have it figured out, Obama did. And as a liberal I want to apologize to the conservatives for us following the law; I realize that is not your position. Quote Bottom line, these guys were caught in theater, by military assets. These should be settle by military tribunal. And that could have happened under Bush, but he was so far over his head he didn't know how to handle these matters, so he just left it unresolved. Still, under Geneva, since you referenced military rules, these rules were violated, so this matter didn't apply to that either. See, this is what we get when we go from a retard as a president to a Constitutional schoolar. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #62 November 15, 2009 Quote Quote >The ACLU would gladly defend these thugs with the hope they would be >allowed to stay. Sure, let them try. >and some terrrorist incident happens, this administration is done. I guess you can keep praying for that. I'm glad they are being put on trial in the US. I disagree with you that our justice system is a "dog and pony show." I think it's a pretty good one, and 99 times out of 100 accomplishes the goal of enforcing our laws. Moussaoui's trial lasted four years...and he admitted to his role. That was a circus, not a trial. Now, they want to do it again, times-five... If justice had been done properly in the first place, instead of deliberately circumvented, none of this would be necessary. The USA is finally returning to its core values... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #63 November 15, 2009 While I recognize some may have that motive, I don’t think all do. And I’m not much inclined to speculate on Mayor Giuliani’s motives. At the same time, I very much think it is a policy decision worth discussing. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #64 November 15, 2009 Quote Quote Bottom line, these guys were caught in theater, by military assets. These should be settle by military tribunal. If that is the metric, what if they weren’t? I.e., what if they were not captured by military assets and not captured in theater? /Marg Well Marg, if we're going to do hypothetical...let's say Iraqi police captured these guys, and they weren't handed over to military authorities, then the US could have had them extradited. The FBI would presumably have taken custody, etc. I'll start with that, since you have a knack for inserting all sorts of variables. The problem with this hypothetical is, it didn't happen this way. They were captured beyond our borders, in kinetic situations. Given the threat assessments at the time, rendition protocols were likely in use, and since the CIA has no mandate to operate domestically...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #65 November 15, 2009 QuoteWell Marg, if we're going to do hypothetical...let's say Iraqi police captured these guys, and they weren't handed over to military authorities, then the US could have had them extradited. The FBI would presumably have taken custody, etc. I'll start with that, since you have a knack for inserting all sorts of variables. The problem with this hypothetical is, it didn't happen this way. They were captured beyond our borders, in kinetic situations. [emphasis mine] ... Are you sure? /Marg p.s. who's changing variables? Initially it was "in theater." Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #66 November 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteGITMO is not a photo op, it's just one of the messes inherited from the previous mess. Just keep singin' it man...the song is already worn out, but I think it's cute that you hold on to this mantra. The day President Obama signed an EO to close the detention facility, he made it his mess. This action makes this issue, President Obama's and DA Holder's. Bringing them to NYC wasn't inherited. I won't sit here and say President Bush's team had it all figured out, because they clearly didn't, and they let too many factors f*ck with the situation in gitmo. Bottom line, these guys were caught in theater, by military assets. These should be settle by military tribunal. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003, by the Pakistani ISI. I am not aware that we are at war with Pakistan.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #67 November 15, 2009 QuoteIf justice had been done properly in the first place, instead of deliberately circumvented, none of this would be necessary. The USA is finally returning to its core values I made that same point simultaneously in the post above yours, posted 1 minute earlier. This is such a moot point that we shouldn't have to make it, but since we talk to conservatives, that necessitates it. Just like the stimulus wouldn't be neccessary absent Bush's policies and all kinds of things that had gone to hell. I bet the neo-cons think Buhs being ranked the 6th worst pres of all times is just thievery. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #68 November 15, 2009 Quote Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003, by the Pakistani ISI. I am not aware that we are at war with Pakistan. I know that ... I was hoping to understand better Max's thinking underlying his assertion and how he got to that. Summary of captures of 5 detainees to be tried in federal court: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in Pakistan by the Pakistani ISI. There may (likely) have been some involvement by CIA. Among the first Americans to interrogate KSM were FBI special agents, i.e., purview of DOJ. Ali al-Aziz Ali was captured in Karachi by Pakistani police originally w/r/t a plot to bomb the US Embassy in Pakistan. He was transferred to the FBI initially. Waleed bin Attash captured in Pakistan by Pakistani police. He was transferred to the FBI initially also. (The last two I had to look up, both who were the detainees & where they were captured) Ramzi Binalshibh was captured in Pakistan by ISI. Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi was captured in Pakistan by ISI. He is the only one who was transferred directly to US military assets (Bagram). Otoh, Abd al-Raheem al-Nashiri, who is accused of planning Al Qaeda’s bombing of USS Cole, was captured in the UAE by the UAE (unsure police, intelligence, or military) and then transferred to CIA. AG Holder announced he is to be tried in a military tribunal. I'm not sure that the metric of "who" does the capturing and/or "where" the capturing takes places is the most important one. Maybe someone can convince me otherwise? "Who" and "what" were the targets may, imo, be a better metric. For 9-11 the targets were a mix of civilian (WTC and White House or Capitol) and military (PNT). In that case, which takes precedence? I have an opinion. The target of the USS Cole bombing was military. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites loumeinhart 0 #69 November 15, 2009 QuoteAG Holder announced he is to be tried in a military tribunal Holder also said Khadr is facing a tribunal along with others at gitmo. And I think he was captured by US Soldiers in afghanistan. So I'm confused, to get a Tribunal you have to be caught by U.S. forces? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #70 November 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteAG Holder announced he is to be tried in a military tribunal Holder also said Khadr is facing a tribunal along with others at gitmo. And I think he was captured by US Soldiers in afghanistan. So I'm confused, to get a Tribunal you have to be caught by U.S. forces? You're right - it can be confusing. Yes, Omar Khadr was captured by the US Army. He was captured at the conclusion of a fairly well-documented (there are pictures), outright firefight in Afghanistan. He's being tried under the Military Commissions Act for actions against US forces w/r/t Laws of War not for international terrorism. W/r/t the Khadr case it's not who captured him but for what he's being charged. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #71 November 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteAG Holder announced he is to be tried in a military tribunal Holder also said Khadr is facing a tribunal along with others at gitmo. And I think he was captured by US Soldiers in afghanistan. So I'm confused, to get a Tribunal you have to be caught by U.S. forces? You should be confused, as should the rest of us. Once the previous administration decided that it could trample on core US values and thumb its nose at both the US Constitution and international law, eventual confusion was guaranteed.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #72 November 15, 2009 Quote Quote Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003, by the Pakistani ISI. I am not aware that we are at war with Pakistan. I know that ... I was hoping to understand better Max's thinking underlying his assertion and how he got to that. Summary of captures of 5 detainees to be tried in federal court: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in Pakistan by the Pakistani ISI. There may (likely) have been some involvement by CIA. Among the first Americans to interrogate KSM were FBI special agents, i.e., purview of DOJ. Ali al-Aziz Ali was captured in Karachi by Pakistani police originally w/r/t a plot to bomb the US Embassy in Pakistan. He was transferred to the FBI initially. Waleed bin Attash captured in Pakistan by Pakistani police. He was transferred to the FBI initially also. (The last two I had to look up, both who were the detainees & where they were captured) Ramzi Binalshibh was captured in Pakistan by ISI. Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi was captured in Pakistan by ISI. He is the only one who was transferred directly to US military assets (Bagram). Otoh, Abd al-Raheem al-Nashiri, who is accused of planning Al Qaeda’s bombing of USS Cole, was captured in the UAE by the UAE (unsure police, intelligence, or military) and then transferred to CIA. AG Holder announced he is to be tried in a military tribunal. I'm not sure that the metric of "who" does the capturing and/or "where" the capturing takes places is the most important one. Maybe someone can convince me otherwise? "Who" and "what" were the targets may, imo, be a better metric. For 9-11 the targets were a mix of civilian (WTC and White House or Capitol) and military (PNT). In that case, which takes precedence? I have an opinion. The target of the USS Cole bombing was military. /Marg All of the Army personnel I know that have been in Pakistan say the situation is "kinetic", and that was being kind. In fact, one of them had just walked out of the lobby of the Marriott before the bomb went off (2008 attack). Given the number of engagements US forces have made along the border of Pakistan, and indeed, inside of Pakistan, it is clearly a combat zone. I don't have to make a case that Pakistan is a state on the verge of collapse. Saying ISI and CIA are operating within a structured legal framework sounds like fantasy to me, especially in Pakistan. Next thing you know, we'll be entertaining a civil suit from someone in Iraq saying that Task Force was responsible for the wrongful death of al-Zarqarwi. As to your other points, as I said, if the FBI took initial "control" on behalf the US, then they would have been better served to follow their framework to build a case, and see it through. Having said that, I think foreign operations for the FBI are not their forte, and if they are going to be formally involved, then perhaps there should be formal diplomatic channels involved. If they are going to be handed over to the military, then they should be ready to accept a military solution to the problem.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rickjump1 0 #73 November 15, 2009 QuoteAnd this entire issue brought up by Giuliana on FoxNews is just how much the Republican party wants Obama to fail. That is all this is about. End of story. It's disgusting. Yes its disgusting. Quade, if it weren't for Fox News, the safety concerns for NYC might never have been broadcast to the public. Do you really think it's just the Republicans? Drop your Al Gore Cook Book, and take off the rose colored glasses.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #74 November 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteAnd this entire issue brought up by Giuliana on FoxNews is just how much the Republican party wants Obama to fail. That is all this is about. End of story. It's disgusting. Yes its disgusting. Quade, if it weren't for Fox News, the safety concerns for NYC might never have been broadcast to the public. What a crock of shit. Think about it. Is NYC really going to ever be at a LOWER state of terrorist threat? Ever? Are you seriously telling me that you believe NYC was "safer" 10 minutes before the announcement of the trial was announced? The only thing that has changed is the ratcheting up of fear in the public by Giuliani and FoxNews. Other than that, you're insulting the individuals that try to protect NYC on a daily basis.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites yourmomma 0 #75 November 15, 2009 "Once the previous administration decided that it could trample on core US values and thumb its nose at both the US Constitution and international law, eventual confusion was guaranteed. " Silly lib letting fact and logic override emotional response. Why is it so hard for you people to understand that as long as my "gut" tells me it's ok, it's ok. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 3 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Andy9o8 2 #54 November 15, 2009 Quote these guys were caught in theater, by military assets. These should be settle by military tribunal. In that case, I propose that the foxes conduct tribunals of suspected chickens in henhouses. No lack of partiality there, is there? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #55 November 15, 2009 Quotethe other day, holder all but guarenteed a conviction. did you hear his press conference and if so do you detect any hints of a pre-decided outcome? Yes, and I found it revolting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #56 November 15, 2009 Quote Quote these guys were caught in theater, by military assets. These should be settle by military tribunal. In that case, I propose that the foxes conduct tribunals of suspected chickens in henhouses. No lack of partiality there, is there? Spoken from someone that clearly has never been in attendance of a military court. The military court, I would argue, is better balanced, more pragmatic, more dispassionate than a civilian court. Plus, against back-drops like OJ, and Mousaoui, far more professional too.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #57 November 15, 2009 Quote Bottom line, these guys were caught in theater, by military assets. These should be settle by military tribunal. If that is the metric, what if they weren’t? I.e., what if they were not captured by military assets and not captured in theater? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #58 November 15, 2009 QuoteSpoken from someone that clearly has never been in attendance of a military court. I thought we were playing the ball and not the player, Max. In any event, you're wrong. There may be more decorum in military courts, but that's not the be-all-and-end-all. I wouldn't give up the civilian jury and constitutional protections afforded in an American civilian court, for a panel of officers, the procedures and the rules of evidence in a military tribunal, in a coon's age. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #59 November 15, 2009 Andy - thanks for your calm and thought-out replies throughout this thread! And thanks to [TrophyHusband] for his questions. Hard questions are good. They improve my thinking. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #60 November 15, 2009 And this entire issue brought up by Giuliana on FoxNews is just how much the Republican party wants Obama to fail. That is all this is about. End of story. It's disgusting.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #61 November 15, 2009 Quote Just keep singin' it man...the song is already worn out, but I think it's cute that you hold on to this mantra. The day President Obama signed an EO to close the detention facility, he made it his mess. But the inherited interest rate issue wasn't Reagan's fault - the inherited GITMO is Obama's fault? Now I get it. Quote This action makes this issue, President Obama's and DA Holder's. Bringing them to NYC wasn't inherited. I won't sit here and say President Bush's team had it all figured out, because they clearly didn't, and they let too many factors f*ck with the situation in gitmo. Baby steps: since GWB didn't have it figured out, Obama did. And as a liberal I want to apologize to the conservatives for us following the law; I realize that is not your position. Quote Bottom line, these guys were caught in theater, by military assets. These should be settle by military tribunal. And that could have happened under Bush, but he was so far over his head he didn't know how to handle these matters, so he just left it unresolved. Still, under Geneva, since you referenced military rules, these rules were violated, so this matter didn't apply to that either. See, this is what we get when we go from a retard as a president to a Constitutional schoolar. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #62 November 15, 2009 Quote Quote >The ACLU would gladly defend these thugs with the hope they would be >allowed to stay. Sure, let them try. >and some terrrorist incident happens, this administration is done. I guess you can keep praying for that. I'm glad they are being put on trial in the US. I disagree with you that our justice system is a "dog and pony show." I think it's a pretty good one, and 99 times out of 100 accomplishes the goal of enforcing our laws. Moussaoui's trial lasted four years...and he admitted to his role. That was a circus, not a trial. Now, they want to do it again, times-five... If justice had been done properly in the first place, instead of deliberately circumvented, none of this would be necessary. The USA is finally returning to its core values... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #63 November 15, 2009 While I recognize some may have that motive, I don’t think all do. And I’m not much inclined to speculate on Mayor Giuliani’s motives. At the same time, I very much think it is a policy decision worth discussing. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #64 November 15, 2009 Quote Quote Bottom line, these guys were caught in theater, by military assets. These should be settle by military tribunal. If that is the metric, what if they weren’t? I.e., what if they were not captured by military assets and not captured in theater? /Marg Well Marg, if we're going to do hypothetical...let's say Iraqi police captured these guys, and they weren't handed over to military authorities, then the US could have had them extradited. The FBI would presumably have taken custody, etc. I'll start with that, since you have a knack for inserting all sorts of variables. The problem with this hypothetical is, it didn't happen this way. They were captured beyond our borders, in kinetic situations. Given the threat assessments at the time, rendition protocols were likely in use, and since the CIA has no mandate to operate domestically...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #65 November 15, 2009 QuoteWell Marg, if we're going to do hypothetical...let's say Iraqi police captured these guys, and they weren't handed over to military authorities, then the US could have had them extradited. The FBI would presumably have taken custody, etc. I'll start with that, since you have a knack for inserting all sorts of variables. The problem with this hypothetical is, it didn't happen this way. They were captured beyond our borders, in kinetic situations. [emphasis mine] ... Are you sure? /Marg p.s. who's changing variables? Initially it was "in theater." Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #66 November 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteGITMO is not a photo op, it's just one of the messes inherited from the previous mess. Just keep singin' it man...the song is already worn out, but I think it's cute that you hold on to this mantra. The day President Obama signed an EO to close the detention facility, he made it his mess. This action makes this issue, President Obama's and DA Holder's. Bringing them to NYC wasn't inherited. I won't sit here and say President Bush's team had it all figured out, because they clearly didn't, and they let too many factors f*ck with the situation in gitmo. Bottom line, these guys were caught in theater, by military assets. These should be settle by military tribunal. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003, by the Pakistani ISI. I am not aware that we are at war with Pakistan.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #67 November 15, 2009 QuoteIf justice had been done properly in the first place, instead of deliberately circumvented, none of this would be necessary. The USA is finally returning to its core values I made that same point simultaneously in the post above yours, posted 1 minute earlier. This is such a moot point that we shouldn't have to make it, but since we talk to conservatives, that necessitates it. Just like the stimulus wouldn't be neccessary absent Bush's policies and all kinds of things that had gone to hell. I bet the neo-cons think Buhs being ranked the 6th worst pres of all times is just thievery. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #68 November 15, 2009 Quote Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003, by the Pakistani ISI. I am not aware that we are at war with Pakistan. I know that ... I was hoping to understand better Max's thinking underlying his assertion and how he got to that. Summary of captures of 5 detainees to be tried in federal court: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in Pakistan by the Pakistani ISI. There may (likely) have been some involvement by CIA. Among the first Americans to interrogate KSM were FBI special agents, i.e., purview of DOJ. Ali al-Aziz Ali was captured in Karachi by Pakistani police originally w/r/t a plot to bomb the US Embassy in Pakistan. He was transferred to the FBI initially. Waleed bin Attash captured in Pakistan by Pakistani police. He was transferred to the FBI initially also. (The last two I had to look up, both who were the detainees & where they were captured) Ramzi Binalshibh was captured in Pakistan by ISI. Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi was captured in Pakistan by ISI. He is the only one who was transferred directly to US military assets (Bagram). Otoh, Abd al-Raheem al-Nashiri, who is accused of planning Al Qaeda’s bombing of USS Cole, was captured in the UAE by the UAE (unsure police, intelligence, or military) and then transferred to CIA. AG Holder announced he is to be tried in a military tribunal. I'm not sure that the metric of "who" does the capturing and/or "where" the capturing takes places is the most important one. Maybe someone can convince me otherwise? "Who" and "what" were the targets may, imo, be a better metric. For 9-11 the targets were a mix of civilian (WTC and White House or Capitol) and military (PNT). In that case, which takes precedence? I have an opinion. The target of the USS Cole bombing was military. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #69 November 15, 2009 QuoteAG Holder announced he is to be tried in a military tribunal Holder also said Khadr is facing a tribunal along with others at gitmo. And I think he was captured by US Soldiers in afghanistan. So I'm confused, to get a Tribunal you have to be caught by U.S. forces? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #70 November 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteAG Holder announced he is to be tried in a military tribunal Holder also said Khadr is facing a tribunal along with others at gitmo. And I think he was captured by US Soldiers in afghanistan. So I'm confused, to get a Tribunal you have to be caught by U.S. forces? You're right - it can be confusing. Yes, Omar Khadr was captured by the US Army. He was captured at the conclusion of a fairly well-documented (there are pictures), outright firefight in Afghanistan. He's being tried under the Military Commissions Act for actions against US forces w/r/t Laws of War not for international terrorism. W/r/t the Khadr case it's not who captured him but for what he's being charged. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #71 November 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteAG Holder announced he is to be tried in a military tribunal Holder also said Khadr is facing a tribunal along with others at gitmo. And I think he was captured by US Soldiers in afghanistan. So I'm confused, to get a Tribunal you have to be caught by U.S. forces? You should be confused, as should the rest of us. Once the previous administration decided that it could trample on core US values and thumb its nose at both the US Constitution and international law, eventual confusion was guaranteed.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #72 November 15, 2009 Quote Quote Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003, by the Pakistani ISI. I am not aware that we are at war with Pakistan. I know that ... I was hoping to understand better Max's thinking underlying his assertion and how he got to that. Summary of captures of 5 detainees to be tried in federal court: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in Pakistan by the Pakistani ISI. There may (likely) have been some involvement by CIA. Among the first Americans to interrogate KSM were FBI special agents, i.e., purview of DOJ. Ali al-Aziz Ali was captured in Karachi by Pakistani police originally w/r/t a plot to bomb the US Embassy in Pakistan. He was transferred to the FBI initially. Waleed bin Attash captured in Pakistan by Pakistani police. He was transferred to the FBI initially also. (The last two I had to look up, both who were the detainees & where they were captured) Ramzi Binalshibh was captured in Pakistan by ISI. Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi was captured in Pakistan by ISI. He is the only one who was transferred directly to US military assets (Bagram). Otoh, Abd al-Raheem al-Nashiri, who is accused of planning Al Qaeda’s bombing of USS Cole, was captured in the UAE by the UAE (unsure police, intelligence, or military) and then transferred to CIA. AG Holder announced he is to be tried in a military tribunal. I'm not sure that the metric of "who" does the capturing and/or "where" the capturing takes places is the most important one. Maybe someone can convince me otherwise? "Who" and "what" were the targets may, imo, be a better metric. For 9-11 the targets were a mix of civilian (WTC and White House or Capitol) and military (PNT). In that case, which takes precedence? I have an opinion. The target of the USS Cole bombing was military. /Marg All of the Army personnel I know that have been in Pakistan say the situation is "kinetic", and that was being kind. In fact, one of them had just walked out of the lobby of the Marriott before the bomb went off (2008 attack). Given the number of engagements US forces have made along the border of Pakistan, and indeed, inside of Pakistan, it is clearly a combat zone. I don't have to make a case that Pakistan is a state on the verge of collapse. Saying ISI and CIA are operating within a structured legal framework sounds like fantasy to me, especially in Pakistan. Next thing you know, we'll be entertaining a civil suit from someone in Iraq saying that Task Force was responsible for the wrongful death of al-Zarqarwi. As to your other points, as I said, if the FBI took initial "control" on behalf the US, then they would have been better served to follow their framework to build a case, and see it through. Having said that, I think foreign operations for the FBI are not their forte, and if they are going to be formally involved, then perhaps there should be formal diplomatic channels involved. If they are going to be handed over to the military, then they should be ready to accept a military solution to the problem.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #73 November 15, 2009 QuoteAnd this entire issue brought up by Giuliana on FoxNews is just how much the Republican party wants Obama to fail. That is all this is about. End of story. It's disgusting. Yes its disgusting. Quade, if it weren't for Fox News, the safety concerns for NYC might never have been broadcast to the public. Do you really think it's just the Republicans? Drop your Al Gore Cook Book, and take off the rose colored glasses.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #74 November 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteAnd this entire issue brought up by Giuliana on FoxNews is just how much the Republican party wants Obama to fail. That is all this is about. End of story. It's disgusting. Yes its disgusting. Quade, if it weren't for Fox News, the safety concerns for NYC might never have been broadcast to the public. What a crock of shit. Think about it. Is NYC really going to ever be at a LOWER state of terrorist threat? Ever? Are you seriously telling me that you believe NYC was "safer" 10 minutes before the announcement of the trial was announced? The only thing that has changed is the ratcheting up of fear in the public by Giuliani and FoxNews. Other than that, you're insulting the individuals that try to protect NYC on a daily basis.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yourmomma 0 #75 November 15, 2009 "Once the previous administration decided that it could trample on core US values and thumb its nose at both the US Constitution and international law, eventual confusion was guaranteed. " Silly lib letting fact and logic override emotional response. Why is it so hard for you people to understand that as long as my "gut" tells me it's ok, it's ok. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
