Giuliani: 9/11 Trials in NYC Will Lead to More Terrorism

[billvon 3,118]

Marg, I always enjoy reading your posts, which are unusually well thought out and dispassionate for this forum. I hope you won't let your experience with a few of the more acrimonious posters here dissuade you from posting.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

from what I am reading in Canada the Khadr case isn't that sound. But, I can't say that I have seen the evidence myself. There appears to be a picture that refutes some of what the military is claiming.

However, in the Khadr case, military tribunal is better option to protect the relationship with Canada, and to ensure that canada could not interject itself in the case.. There is a lot of political pressure on the PM here to interject itself.....including a case in front of our Supreme Court right now that is trying to force the government to do something......

In civilian court, Canada would have more option to interject itself with requests for extradition, requests to have the sentence served in Canada etc. If the case is in front of a military tribunal, those options are likely not on the table. This would prevent issues that could get ugly politically.

[pirana 0]

Military versus civilian, terrorism versus act of war, etc. . . , very complicated.

What I really got a kick out of was Stewart's treatment of Giuliani. Typical politician playing to the crowd and the moment, yet claiming to be principle driven.

In his press conference he directly contradicted his statements from 2006. Not sort of contradicted, not in some ways contradicted, but completely 180'd. This was not acheived with clever editing of sound bites. The clips were lengthy enough and in enough depth on the topic that it is very clear he is pandering to the crowd and playing to the current party line.

What a lying, unprincipled scumbag (aka a professional politician).

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Remster 30]

Quote

What I really got a kick out of was Stewart's treatment of Giuliani. Typical politician playing to the crowd and the moment, yet claiming to be principle driven.

What is really sad is that none of the actual news shows are willing to challenge the pundits they interview, for fear of losing access to them.

Remster

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Do you insult, belittle, dismiss, or refuse to hear those who don't have what you perceive to be work of value?

Quote

I've done none of that to you.

Um, actually you have. In this thread and in others with multiple ad hominems. Even this whole tangent is directed at me. Because in your view, I don’t/can’t know what I’m talking about.

You chose to make the thread about me rather than addressing the problems with your assertions.

You were called out previously in this thread for ‘playing the player’ rather than playing the ball.

I am going to set this record straight, I don't care what the forum, I will not have my integrity attacked because someone's feelings got hurt.

---

I said:

Quote

Bottom line, these guys were caught in theater, by military assets. These should be settle by military tribunal.

I was later corrected on this as to which assets actually made the capture, ISI, versus military. I still contend Pakistan is a combat zone, whether officially acknowledged or not.

---

Marg said:

Quote

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?

---

I replied:

Quote

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...

Not politely, but I did answer the question, presuming that non-military resources could follow a process to take in captured terrorists, following the hypothetical example.

---

Marg provides:

Quote

Are you sure? /Marg p.s. who's changing variables? Initially it was "in theater."

Okay, I get it...some people might not understand the broader meaning could be similar. I didn't reply, instead continued off of Marg's following:

---

Marg continues:

Quote

I know that Tongue ... 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.

---

My response:

Quote

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.

I was simply maintaining my line of thought to Marg's original question, metrics of what to do if the military is not involved. Also conveying that Pakistan is most certainly a kinetic environment, and I made my case.

---

Marg continues:

Quote

KSM was apprehended during the predawn hours while sleeping; it was more “somnolentic” than kinetic.

In March 2003, where I was in Nepal -- due to Nepal’s domestic insurgency -- was more kinetic than Rawalpindi.

Your own criteria in opposition to announced policy decision and in favor of military tribunal was “Bottom line, these guys were caught in theater, by military assets.” You later amended/expanded that criteria to “kinetic situations.”

In the case of Omar Khadr, who was captured in theater (Afghanistan), by military assets (US Army), and while in a kinetic situation (firefight) – all of your criteria – the Obama administration plans to try him under the Military Commissions Act in a military tribunal. In the case that fits your criteria, the Obama administration policy and your recommendation are the same. What you called “the single dumbest-idiotic-retarded idea” is following your own criteria.

Now to be fair, Khadr is a clear(er) case. In a case that is not as clear-cut *w/r/t your 3 criteria,* al-Nashiri, who was apprehended outside of theater by UAE, is also being tried in a military tribunal. (The al-Nishiri/USS Cole bombing case may be clear-cut under *other* criteria.)

Otoh, the 5 detainees announced to be tried in federal court on international terrorism charges were not apprehended in theater, were not apprehended by military assets, and in 3 of 5 cases (I don’t know w/r/t the latter two, so I’m not making an assertion), were not apprehended in kinetic situations. (If someone is interested in investigating the latter two cases, I enthusiastically invite it!) They do not satisfy even 1 out of 3 of your own criteria.

Back to the ‘how’ and ‘why’ you came to your conclusion. If your earlier assertions and conclusions – “Bottom line, these guys were caught in theater, by military assets. These should be settle [sic] by military tribunal. ” – were based on something less than complete information, does that suggest to you that it might be worth revisiting? Or does that not matter to you? If not, why not?/Marg

Again, bringing up my broader context and providing more details about the apprehension of these five terrorists that are to be tried in NYC, and again asking about my opinion, and not letting go of my initial statement, regardless of how I continue the conversation.

---

I continue:

Quote

I've already stated a framework where I felt civilian authorities should get involved, in the context of the FBI being the agency gaining custody of individuals. For whatever reason, the FBI was deemed unable, or not ready to process such people, and as such, they were handed over to the military. You have displayed twice my change in verbiage (which I didn't catch at the time), with disregard to my meaning. Despite that, I've answered your question.

As to kinetic situations, breaching a door and clearing a house, or a room, only to capture a guy in "bed" is still a kinetic situation. A non-kinetic situation would have been the ISI knocking on the door and asking him to give up.

Pretty self-explanitory.

---

Marg's response:

Quote

Okay … & it’s been shown that your framework (apprehended in theater, by military assets, in a kinetic situation) does not apply to the 5 detainees to be tried to federal court on international terrorism charges. In the case that your framework does apply, Khadr, the Obama administration is doing what you recommend, i.e., military tribunal.

Quote

If that is your definition, should every apprehension by local or federal law enforcement that involves anything beyond a knock on the door result in those detained being turned over to the military for military prosecution? I doubt it. A more common usage of kinetic w/r/t warfare involves dropping bombs, rolling in with tanks, detonating IEDs (& trying to avoid them), and shooting bullets.

Quote

I guess I’ve missed it. As your original assertions and conclusions were based on something less than complete information, does that suggest to you that it might be worth revisiting? Or is that what you are claiming you are doing? I guess I’m not seeing that. Or does that not matter to you? If not, why not?

Marg has given up the forest for the trees. I have, in the course of conversation reshaped my meaning. Not to her liking. She then goes on to share her definition of a kinetic situation as it relates to a combat zone, or really anywhere. She has dismissed, belittled, and refused my assertion.

Now it's my turn to provide some additional background about me: My unit was in Ramadi Iraq, late 2005, through much of 2006. I was one of the first wounded after about three months of operations. You won't find many news reports about Ramadi from this time period because all the crap that the Marines pushed out of Fallujah rolled west into Ramadi, a city four times the size of Fallujah, and even more dangerous. We conducted multiple offensive operations in support of other assets in place at the time, many of them diversionary in nature. Even during "calm" times, we were locked and loaded. Every breach we made was a kinetic environment. Just about the time I was wounded, our commanders on the ground were figuring out the timing of insurgent engagement. Engagements during the day were regular. Night time operations were quieter, but just as kinetic, and as it happens, it was at that time of night when I almost met my maker. So, I can state with confidence, that I know what a kinetic situation is. I can also glean, from others who have worn my boots, that they know what a kinetic situation is as well.

---

My (immature) reply:

Quote

Of course Marg....I have no f**king idea what I'm talking about...sorry to disturb your serene intelligent bubble...

I had, at this point, decided to leave the matter alone. It's the internet, doesn't really matter. In a hundred years, who's going to care, etc....then I decided that I care.

---

Marg:

Quote

Max, my apologies if something came across like that. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion but do accept responsibility for the things I write. And I apologize if my words were seen as hurtful.

Communicating via internet is challenging. I'm trying to have a calm, non-emotionally-driven, fact-based conversation with you w/r/t some assertions that were not factual and how you got to those conclusions. You haven't distrubed anything with me. Ad hominems at me don't help with communication.

---

My response:

Quote

Your words aren't hurtful Marg, they're wrong. Ask any SWAT guy how they view clearing an area during an operation. Ask any cop in just about any circumstance. Ask any soldier or operator that is in the field whether in a "declared" combat zone or not.

As hard as some may try to convey this to people that shape policy, or find deterrents to keep the country safe, they'll never get it if they've not seen anything other than a desk. I have a friend who works with some pretty interesting levels with the "2-shops" (intel) at the Pentagon. Were it not for his previous work with DIA he told me, he'd fit right in...

I stand by what I said, and make no mention at all or any personal assertion to Marg. I have not dismissed her "definition" without context, but I have dismissed it.

---

Marg:

Quote

So what conclusion do you then take from that? Do you insult, belittle, dismiss, or refuse to hear those who don't have what you perceive to be work of value? Is more "us" versus "them" of benefit? Is that the most effective strategy?

As you can see, we have fully developed our own tangent here.

My response to those questions in order:

Quote

Which conclusion do I take from what? What my friend told me? He elaborated with me, and I will not share that here, but I have drawn my conclusion. I have no power over yours. Bottom line, officers get taken out of the field too early. Many don't make it to the field at all.

Quote

I've done none of that to you. I have attempted to answer your questions as frankly as possible. How you choose to respond is certainly up to you. You ask lots of questions, which I certainly don't fault. Having you describe to me what you "think" a kinetic situation in southwest Asia/Middle East/combat zone is...well, I know, what I know. You may accept it or not. If you want to keep that in your paradigm great, if not, I can't help you. Don't turn passive just because it's something you don't want to hear/read. It's still akin to me trying to describe labor pains to a woman, even if I've read through volumes of information on the subject. I may have a grasp, but again, a pregnant woman would likely rather hear it from another mother if given the choice.

Quote

I'm not sure who you're talking about here. But if you mean us, versus the Islamic radicals, they've made their choice. I've made mine and I wish to God in Heaven the rest of the country would stick to its principles.

Quote

In terms of what?

Quote

Re: [nerdgirl] valueing different experiences
It's not a value call, Marg. It's experience. I've seen enough (and it doesn't qualify as much) and heard more...

---

And now, here we are. I have made no personal assertions against Marg, her job, or previous jobs.

---

But then Marg provides her own grand finale:
---- -- ---- -- ----

Quote

Quote

As hard as some may try to convey this to people that shape policy, or find deterrents to keep the country safe, they'll never get it if they've not seen anything other than a desk. I have a friend who works with some pretty interesting levels with the "2-shops" (intel) at the Pentagon. Were it not for his previous work with DIA he told me, he'd fit right in...

This was a slam on me for anyone who might be slightly confused reading this.

Max knows that I was a political appointee in President Bush’s admin because I had told him via a PM. I was the lowliest category of appointees (Class C), something that Max characterizes/dismisses/belittles as “not seen anything other than a desk” therefore not having the authority he does or experience he does to speak on the issue. Can't dispute the argument, so he argues based on the person, i.e., playing the player.

He’s trying to use something he knows that most folks don’t against me. But it’s not a secret. If you’re ever in my office, the center of my ‘wall of me’ is a framed picture of the Pentagon. Even have a pic of Rumsfeld that was a gift from a retired Army Colonel who worked with me; it's a lttle bit of an inside joke but I like it anyways. My service in OSD is just not something I feel the need to advertise. It is part of me; it doesn’t define or circumscribe me, my experiences, or how I think.

I’ve made a choice to construct arguments based on facts and logic rather than appealing to any supposed (or lack thereof) authority. No pretense of altruism or anything like that: there’s also a selfish motive – it’s fun for me. My ego is healthy enough that I don’t need to invoke the OSD-thing.

Because Max knows that I served in the Bush admin, he knows that it’s hard to assert with any integrity that I’m partisan. I was part of Rumsfeld’s OSD. Been there, still have the snowflakes. Only Ranger Tab I got was “PowerPoint Ranger.” Always been explicit about that. I was asked to serve and I did proudly. Was asked to stay on as an SES, but I declined for lots of reasons. Was an Army HQE for a year after leaving. I would, in time, like to go back to the Pentagon. I am one a very small number of folks who genuinely loved my time in The Building. I was asked to serve because some folks in the DoD thought I had valuable knowledge, skills, and experience (including uniformed folks, since those are the only ones Max seems to value - the rest in his words "never get it."). Those latter two are the parts Max chooses to ignore or wants to suggest I don’t have as a way to invalidate my “serene intelligent bubble” challenges to his assertions. I don’t get mad and I don’t get emotional. Usually neither generate very little productive, imo … especially on the internet.

But I don’t like it being about me … & prefer to be semi-anonymous ‘nerdgirl’/Marg. I am genuinely curious as to what people think and how/why they got to that thinking. I like the challenge of constructing arguments & remaining civil even when sworn at or called a communist or whatever. I’m always nice. Ask tough questions … but am nice. And I sure as heck don’t want to be viewed as speaking for the entire Bush administration or OSD (Rumsfeld’s or Gates’ - I served under both SecDefs). When I showed Max’s assertions to be false and challenged his authority, his response was first to yell at me “Of course Marg....I have no f**king idea what I'm talking about" and then to make ad hominems. One outright and one wrapped in that slam quoted above. So yeah, I probably could have ignored it … but as I wrote, it’s not a secret. Some things aren’t other people’s business.

I get to do, see, and experience some really neat things. At the same time I value listening to others' experiences because as an idealist I think the opinions of everyday Americans matter.

/Marg

Let's be clear that I brought up nothing about your background. You did. I have held everything you ever told me in PM in the strictest confidence and will continue to do so (some have been deleted long ago). It was you who made it about you. I am deeply disappointed you chose to stoop to this level to make a point, and feel sorry for you. I will simply not engage with you anymore.

edited to clean up formatting.

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!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Marg, I always enjoy reading your posts, which are unusually well thought out and dispassionate for this forum. I hope you won't let your experience with a few of the more acrimonious posters here dissuade you from posting.

Thanks for the very kind words. Very much appreciated.

Naw, I'm tenacious and there are many people here who make it worth the investment of my time. Some who I know from real-life skydiving, a couple who I've met through intersections of other activities, and others who I hope to meet irl (just a short list).
/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you insult, belittle, dismiss, or refuse to hear those who don't have what you perceive to be work of value?

Quote

I've done none of that to you.

Um, actually you have. In this thread and in others with multiple ad hominems. Even this whole tangent is directed at me. Because in your view, I don’t/can’t know what I’m talking about.

You chose to make the thread about me rather than addressing the problems with your assertions.

You were called out previously in this thread for ‘playing the player’ rather than playing the ball.

I am going to set this record straight, I don't care what the forum, I will not have my integrity attacked because someone's feelings got hurt.

It’s not feelings. My feelings aren’t hurt. I don’t think you’re referring to your feelings? Perhaps you are?

Originally it was about facts and how they are or are not constructed and the conclusions one draws. Later it became about who gets to have authority to challenge your assertions.

I challenged assertions you made that were not supported by the facts. I even tried to be nice about it even, calling it “something less than complete information,” i.e., giving you an opportunity to consider based on more information that you didn’t have before (because I’m giving you credit that if you did know, you would not have made the statements – that’s not a knock on you). I provided you with a completely honorable out, i.e., a way that you could ‘save face’. Step back and look at what I and others have wrote dispassionately.


If your tangent on those who you thought didn't/couldn't know:

Quote

“As hard as some may try to convey this to people that shape policy, or find deterrents to keep the country safe, they'll never get it if they've not seen anything other than a desk. I have a friend who works with some pretty interesting levels with the "2-shops" (intel) at the Pentagon. Were it not for his previous work with DIA he told me, he'd fit right in...”

wasn’t intended to refer to me, who did you mean it to refer to and why did you include it in your reply to me? Almost everyone here, myself very much included, knows and respects you for your story and your experiences.

I could also ask if you missed (I don’t know what your intention is, that’s why I frequently give options and here am assuming the best rather than choosing a pejorative) my experiences from an insurgency in an adjacent nation, Nepal, in March 2003. Because I'm not "SWAT" or uniformed military does that not 'count'?

In my first couple months at PNT, I p&*%d off an Air Force Colonel. At first I couldn’t even figure out what I’d done or said. Turns out I asked questions and said something publicly that contradicted something that he’d said previously without having full information and that didn’t fit with who he thought could speak authoritatively on the topic. He tried to make my life miserable. (Didn’t work … but he tried.) My boss, a retired Army artillery Colonel and then-SES, who I absolutely adore and respect, explained his take on the situation to me and took steps to insulate me.

The Air Force Colonel retired in 2007. Saw him last April at Carlisle Barracks. Now he loves me. Not sure what I’d done this time either. But in his eyes (he still can be an abrasive jerk [interagency consensus not just my opinion] … but I’m in his “group” now), I’m now valuable. Sometimes it just takes time. I recognize and accept that there is a risk in challenging assertions and assumptions, especially closely held ones. Sometimes there are rewards too. Less often ... but it does happen. Being an iconoclast is one of the many reasons that I'd never make a good politician.

There are reasons to cut off dialogue that I can appreciate. This doesn’t rise to one for me.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Marg,

I think you might be overthinking what the deciding factors were in deciding who gets a civilian trial and who gets a military tribunal.

Personally I believe a much simpler deciding factor. If the evidence was strong enough for civilian court, off to civilian court they go. If the evidence is a little iffy, off to a military tribunal they go.

Ding ding ding.
We have a winner.

"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.