A Further Perspective
What Has Changed?
We Tried Moussaoui and the 1993 bombers in Federal Court. What was different about them?
A lot has changed.
Andrew C. McCarthy, the former assistant U.S. attorney who led the prosecution of the 1993 bombers of World Trade Center, has widely criticized the idea of using American courts for the trial of foreign soldiers. He has the unique perspective of having fought through the process as he tried those accused of planning the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. Both the trials of the 1993 bombers and that of Zacarias Moussaoui (co-conspirator to the 9/11 attacks) involved individuals who were conspiring, living, or working in the United States. In McCarthy's own words:
Moussaoui was arrested in Minnesota at a time when the military commission system did not yet exist. Unlike KSM & Co.[co-conspirators of the 9/11 attacks], he wasn't captured in wartime outside the United States and detained outside the United States at a time when a military commission system had been implemented.
So, there is a tremendous difference between the Moussaoui case or the 1993 bombers, and the regrettable decision by Attorney General Holder (aka President Obama's choice to lead the Department of Justice). Moussaoui was apprehended in the United States. Moussaoui conspired in the United States. The 1993 bombers conspired in the United States. Many of the 1993 bombers were apprehended in the United States, and even worked in the United States -- one a cab driver, another a preacher at several New York City mosques.
Indeed, the 1993 attack was more of an American-grown one than the 9/11 attacks. Moreover, few knew the extent of the jihad against the United States in 1993. Few could have imagined what was in store just six years after the 1995 trial of the Trade Center bombers. We were not involved in an active war in Afghanistan and Iraq, supplying hundreds of thousands of troops to push the blood back, away from our shores. Since September of 2001, however, we have been awakened to the harsh reality of war in our time, on our soil.
Unlike the 1993 attack and unlike the apprehension of 9/11 co-conspirator Moussaoui, those accused of planning the 9/11 terrorist attacks were all apprehended outside of the United States. They were imprisoned outside of the United States. Most were apprehended well after the United States had launched the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These enemy combatants who were caught overseas have no need of being brought to America as if they were NYC cab drivers, tourists, or preachers in a lower Manhattan mosque. They were not.
Attorney General Holder states that we are using all of our options in the prosecution of these terrorists:
We are at war, and we will use every instrument of national power -- civilian, military, law enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic and others -- to win.…
"Every instrument" should also include the military tribunals. Military tribunals are military actions. They are for wartime activities. To date, over 5,000 soldiers have lost their lives fighting this war. This is not a police action nor is it a limited engagement. This is, as Mr. Holder stated, a call for "every instrument of national power." But Mr. Holder fails to grasp the significance of his own words. He fails to recognize that we have other options and other instruments. Why won't we use them?
Why must we have these co-conspirators tried on United States soil? I can understand why we could. I can understand why we might. But clearer than why we might or why we could is the obvious fact that we mustn't. Public opinion agrees with this reasoning. Public opinion agrees with former U.S. prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. Public opinion agrees with using "every instrument of national power" -- including a military instrument designed specifically for this purpose.
According to CNN, two-thirds of Americans want the trial away from their sacred homeland. Why go against logic, the leading prosecutor of the 1993 bombers, the people, and the President's own words, as recently as August of this year.
"Military commissions have a long tradition in the United States," Obama said in a statement. "They are appropriate for trying enemies who violate the laws of war, provided that they are properly structured and administered" (emphasis mine).
There are myriad reasons why the legal process could be exploited with a domestic trial and why a domestic/civilian trial of the 9/11 conspirators could turn our justice system on its head and dance it around in a three-ring circus. Those reasons are being effectively articulated elsewhere. They are almost too numerous to enumerate. Those reasons shouldn't warrant discussion because we never should have gotten to this point. We are at war against soldiers in a jihad; they declared it on us. We aren't considering the trial of a cab driver, taxpayers, or immigrant workers. We are considering the trial of foreign soldiers -- enemies in a larger war against the United States.
That is what has changed. We are at war and they are enemy soldiers, apprehended in the fight, in foreign lands. They are not American citizens, nor were they ever.
For a pre-9/11 mindset, not much has changed; little has been learned. To those who grasp the consequences of 9/11 on 9/12 and beyond, this country has once again been hallowed, both by the lives taken on September 11, and the warriors whose continual sacrifice adds meaning to the lessons of ignoring a gathering storm. With hallowing comes learning -- to those who will learn.
The 9/11 conspirators were not criminals, they were soldiers. Their fate should not be governed by the principles of a system that they specifically reject, especially when we have other "instruments" of national power at our disposal. What is the wrong with using them?
Letter to the Editor View all comments (91) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Robert P. Kirchhoefer
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/11/20/what-has-changed
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Religion Is Not the Enemy
- Progressive Derangements
- Current Wisdom
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 11.20.09 @ 6:24AM
Keeping Children Safe « Wilson's Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
S.L. Toddard| 11.20.09 @ 7:05AM
The near-absolute uniformity of thought at this magazine (amongst writers *and* readers) is truly striking.
Big J| 11.20.09 @ 7:26AM
If you don't like it, piss off Toddard. Why do you hang around here, spouting your holier than thou nonsense, anyway?
In your view, we are all undereducated neocons, with no rational or logical observation to offer.
IF that is the case, why waste your valuable time reading our nonsense?
I am sure that Hah-vahd, Oxford and other Ivy Tower institutions have much more to offer than The American Spectator does.
Wouldn't they provide for much more useful and enlightening food for thought?
Sincerely,
Your friendly, uneducated hick and neocon,
Big J
Anthony| 11.20.09 @ 10:10AM
Toddard: Am still waiting for your response as to where in Mass. you live, so when the GITMO detainess are released, we'll send a bevy to your neighborhood, after Amherst and Cambridge.
There are enough terrorists to satisfy the "can't we all get along" crowd.
Ray| 11.20.09 @ 10:14AM
The near-absolute uniformity of Toddar's responces to every artical is truly expected as he has no original thought.
Here's a question for you, Toddard: What would YOU do with the people captured overseas? As they were captured outside the territorial boundaries of the United States and, therefor, are not subject to the protections of the Constitution (or federal laws) just what CAN be done with them, judicially speaking? Other than releasing them, just what WOULD you do?
S.L. Toddard| 11.20.09 @ 12:33PM
"As they were captured outside the territorial boundaries of the United States and, therefor, are not subject to the protections of the Constitution (or federal laws) just what CAN be done with them, judicially speaking?"
They CAN be tried in civilian courts. Or, if they are captured on an actual battlefield, they CAN be tried in military courts-martial under the USCMJ.
Gary B.| 11.21.09 @ 5:27PM
Just read the article, so I am late, but Toddard,
what is an "actual battlefield" to you? They declared war on us in 98 and their battlefield is anywhere the "infidels" are located. So, military tribunals are appropriate. By the way, I don't think you can court-martial someone who is not in the US military. Sorry.
Alan Brooks| 11.20.09 @ 2:26PM
poor Little Red Riding Terrorists, they just want to take their baskets of goodies to Granny's house.
Alan Brooks| 11.20.09 @ 2:33PM
Even allowing for population control, with all the innocent victims to choose from, why do Commies like Verkers Verld Partei want us to feel sorry for vicious murderers such as Peltier, KSM, Mumia, Hurricane Cawtah ("for somethin' he never doooonnnne")...?
Thank God McVeigh was white, otherwise he would have been a hero, too.
S.L. Toddard| 11.20.09 @ 7:08AM
"To date, over 5,000 soldiers have lost their lives fighting this war."
KSM was captured in the war against Iraq?
steponbugs| 11.20.09 @ 9:22AM
I believe it was the war on Islamo-fascism, commonly described as the "war on terror". Regardless of where he was captured, he conspired to commit an act of war against the United States, and was responsible for at least 3,000 deaths.
As per Big J, why don't you hang out at the NYT editorial page with your kindred spirits if the tone of this editorial content and commentary runs counter to your delicate sensibilities?
S.L. Toddard| 11.20.09 @ 12:34PM
"I believe it was the war on Islamo-fascism, commonly described as the "war on terror"
OK - so the author was incorrect in stating that over 5000 soldiers had died fighting that war.
Charles Martel| 11.20.09 @ 2:57PM
There is only one war, and it is currently being fought in three countries: Iraq, Afghanistan*, and the United States. In fact, it started here.
(* From there it is spilling into a fourth, Pakistan.)
+++
S.L. Toddard| 11.20.09 @ 6:09PM
Yes, of course - I am aware of that absurd argument. The truth, though, is that the War In Iraq is not and has never been about "terrorism". The War In Afghanistan isn't either, though it was originally. Now, however, our primary purpose is nation-building (which conservatives used to pretend to hate, when it was Clinton building the nations).
Ironic, I think, that we're building nations in the Middle East while we can't even maintain our own. It is a hallmark of liberalism (both social justice liberalism and the Liberal Wilsonian Internationalism of the neoconservatives) that it is the province of busybodies - Northeastern Elites (and the 90% of the electorate they've conned) always insinuating themselves into other's affairs, whether it is the states of the heartland or the south, or other nations scattered across the earth. Their propensity to do so - to meddle into the affairs of other people - while their own nation falls apart speaks to their astounding arrogance.
I still cannot fathom how so many Republicans trumpet the virtues of small, constitutional federal government while at the same time *demanding* that this same government rule over and police the world. They want "small" government, you see - just small enough to wage perpetual war, to maintain a dominant military presence in every quarter of the globe, and to build nations out of thin air, rubble and those survivors who weren't blown into bloody chunks by our bombs and missles.
You know - "small".
Ray| 11.20.09 @ 10:18AM
No. He was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan after fleeing the war in Afghanistan, as you well know.
free realms coins| 11.20.09 @ 8:23AM
The near-absolute uniformity of thought at this magazine (amongst writers *and* readers) is truly striking.
fallen earth chips| 11.20.09 @ 8:48AM
"To date, over 5,000 soldiers have lost their lives fighting this war."
crimecraft cash| 11.20.09 @ 8:52AM
The near-absolute uniformity of thought at this magazine (amongst writers *and* readers) is truly striking.
Red Phillips| 11.20.09 @ 9:27AM
There is a very good discussion of this issue taking place at the Chronicles Magazine website.
http://www.chroniclesmagazine......us-nation/
KSM is not an unlawful enemy combatant by the very definition of the term. Do words mean anything? Look it up. Wikipedia will do just fine. Note that the Wiki entry, which seems to be friendly to the American redefinition of convenience, admits that the US has altered the use of the term.
Do you really want the Feds to have the power to declare by fiat that anyone anywhere is an enemy combatant even if they aren't actually soldiers or irregulars fighting for the enemy? Watch out TEA Part attenders, third party voters, Second Amendment activists, etc. you may be next.
I agree with the author that this is not a policing action, so I guess he would agree with me that we should have atleast bothered to declare war which we have not.
Ryan| 11.20.09 @ 9:52AM
Frankly, I think the definition is wrong. Members of terrorist cells who do the following:
--Do not wear a standardized, recognizable uniform
--Violently Engage civilian and/or military populations
--Claim allegiance to, or receive training from, a national or international organization (Al-Qaeda, any of the various militia groups in Iraq or Afghanistan) with a political end.
should technically be unlawful combatants. This doesn't include Tea-baggers and peaceful protestors, because they aren't violent. Their individuals who go rogue (Hassan, McVeigh, maybe even any attempted Presidential assassin - there's a gray area that needs further debate) should be tried in military fashion.
The criminalization of terror is a mistake. It puts them on our soil in our court systems, with certain aspects of due process that may reveal certain information that the enemy has no need to be revealed.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.20.09 @ 10:23AM
Mr. Vadum nailed it on Toddard: "crank".
I suppose now we have to come up with as short and crisp definitions of Lip moving reader and ole' Red.
Hmmmmm, suggestions?
Those definitions will save us a lot of electrons, unless of course we just want to toy with them.
Margie| 11.20.09 @ 1:02PM
Suggestion: Wiki-Brains Red & Wiki-Brains Toddy.
Red Phillips| 11.21.09 @ 12:15AM
Margie, the point is that even a cursory, Wikipedia level of knowledge makes it clear that KSM is not an unlawful enemy combatant by definition. I am not an expert on the Geneva Convention, but I did get a basic understanding of the Law of Armed Conflict (LoAC) when I was in the military and had to set through the mandatory annual LoAC briefing. Where did you get your understanding?
Bydand76| 11.21.09 @ 1:50PM
Law of Armed Conflict?
I am currently in the military and I have never heard of that?
I am guessing you mean the Laws of War which govern American soldiers who fight in accordance with the Geneva convention.
The Laws of War which you are referencing concern the role of non-combatants and how prisoners are treated, collateral damage. Target identification and use of force, i.e. using a tank to kill a sniper.
You are full of crap because using the Laws of War in conjunction with the ROE and EOF mr KSM IS in fact considered a lawful enemy combatant.
Shut your mouth before you hurt yourself pogue!
Red Phillips| 11.21.09 @ 2:15PM
Bydand 76, perhaps you should do at least a minimal amount of research before you spout off about how much I don't know. LoAC and Law of War are generally two names for the same thing. Enter Law of Armed Conflict into Wikipedia and see where it directs you.
KSM is most certainly not considered a "lawful enemy combatant." If he were he would be entitled to prisoner of war status. The question is if he qualifies an an UNlawful enemy combatant, which he does not by the very definition of the term.
Gary B.| 11.21.09 @ 5:37PM
Red, I don't think I would use "Wiki" as a valid or accurate resource site for anything.
Red Phillips| 11.21.09 @ 6:56PM
Gary, again that is the point. All it takes is a Wiki level of knowledge to understand that KSM is not an unlawful enemy combatant by the classic definition. Do you dispute the basic accuracy of the Wiki article? The Wiki article shills for the recent change in definition, but admits it is a change. It is a change of convenience. Do you really want to grant to the Executive the unlimited right to change a definition that impacts someone's ability to get a fair trial? Do you want to grant that right to the Obama Administration? They'll be coming after "anti-government" thought criminals like you and me next.
Bydand76| 11.21.09 @ 1:55PM
Another point of contention with your ridiculous statement.
You say you are not an expert on the Geneva convention?
Then how can you say KSM is or isn't an enemy combatant? By your own admission you don't know.
You have absolutly no clue what you are talking about Red.
Seriously. Shut up! Your insinuation is highly insulting and degrading to real men/women who soldier up and catch or kill scumbags like KSM.
Pogue!
Red Phillips| 11.21.09 @ 2:09PM
Bydand76, you have comprehension problems. The point is one does not have to be an expert. It only takes a superficial understanding of the terms to know KSM is not one. I'm not an expert on felines, but I know a dog is not a cat when I see one.
Bydand76| 11.22.09 @ 12:00AM
A gain you show you do not have a clue to what you are talking about.
The laws of armed conflict are NOT I say again NOT in relation to the Laws of War.
No one that I know including my CSM, my 1ST SGT and my PLT SGT have any idea of what in the hell is the LOAC? I do not use Wikipedia Red because that is a flawed source meaning that anyone or no one can put in the information.
Wikipedia sucks.
Try Library of Congress or ArmyNCO as a source from now on.
You are splitting hairs here in regards to KSM.
The Geneva convention AND the LOW (laws of War clearly state that KSM Was in fact a enemy combatant.
If you really wanted to to follow the LOW KSM should already be dead.
The Geneva Convention BTW is only applied when to entities have both signed the convention.
I seriously doubt if KSM agreed to sign on it.
See this is the problem with liberal pussies or Paloeo conservative cowards. No brains.
KSM is a enemy combatant no matter how hard you try to weasel an argument and say he isnt.
Just look what he told Zarqawi after they cut off Mr Bergs head on the internet. It would seem like KSM pretty much ordered it.
You need to get your eyes checked because this isnt what you think it is and your reasoning on it is somewhat skewed. AGo back and read the Geneva convention. The Laws of War, and the Hague convention then tell me that KSM is not an enemy combatant.
Better yet, tell it to his victims families.
Red Phillips| 11.22.09 @ 1:54PM
OK Bydand 76, I will make this easy for you. To be an enemy combatant, one would have to be a member of the arm forces against which we are currently at war. (An undeclared and hence illegal war, btw) If captured they are entitled to POW status. To be an unlawful enemy combatant they have to be irregular forces fighting on behalf of the enemy nation we are at war with (Iran or Afghanistan) or regular forces who commit war crimes. KSM was not captured in Iraq or Afghanistan fighting on behalf of either nation. He is a member of an international terrorist syndicate. Hence he is not, by definition, an unlawful enemy combatant. He is a criminal. To declare him so for legal purposes is to alter the definition for convenience. Period. End of discussion. If you continue to argue otherwise you might as well argue that water is not wet.
"Although some of the services often refer to LOAC as the law of war (LOW), within this article LOAC and LOW are the same."
Source: http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm
Margie| 11.22.09 @ 11:07AM
Sir,
I truly do not wish to have a back & forth exchange with you that will result in each of us trying to demean ea. other.
I know we are at odds because we will never agree. I believe you are dead wrong, and you think I am dead wrong and that is how it'll stay. Unless of course you have a conversion. :^)
Anyhow~ the Wiki-brains title is a bit of a jest toward you, only because you ref. it quite often, and you do know it isn't a trustworthy place to get your info.
Sincerely,
Margie
Red Phillips| 11.20.09 @ 8:35PM
Ken, a good definition for me would be paleoconservative, a.k.a real conservative, a.k.a authentic conservative, a.k.a traditionalist conservative. Your pick.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.21.09 @ 12:33PM
Hmmmmm..........paleolithic?
Yeah!
Adjective: a period of human development when chipped stone tools were used; early stone age.
Yeah that's about right, Red. Conserve stone tools!
Bydand76| 11.21.09 @ 2:00PM
Paleoconservative
someone who is to scared of their own shadow to punch someone in the twig and berries when they are being mugged and robbed!
Collective head in the sand. They can talk a great deal about financial matter but when the meat hits the mustard it turns out they are nothing more than cowards
examples; SL Toddard?
Red Phillips| 11.21.09 @ 3:30PM
So paleocons are the ones who are scared of our own shadow? What a pathetic joke. The interventionist program is predicated on fear mongering about every perceived and imagined threat. For example, we are supposed to be scared of the threat brought about by bringing KSM or other terrorist currently at Gitmo to the States. What, are you really scared they are going to escape? You beat your chest, but really the belligerent hyperintervetionist is a scared little Chicken Little bed-wetter. Ooh ... the islamofascist meanies are out to get me. Ooh ... the Russian Bear is on the rise and out to get me. Grow up. Do some actual threat assessment that isn't based on neocon scare stories and relax.
Margie| 11.22.09 @ 11:12AM
This good Soldier is fighting the good fight for your sake, as well as mine, and I for one don't appreciate your treatment of him. I suggest you really ought to reconsider your attitude.
Bydand76| 11.23.09 @ 9:45PM
Sorry Red
You have it all wrong.
The Russian Bears sgtated goal was wrold domination.
The Islamo-fascists stated goal is world domination.
I am sure though that Mr Nick Berg would have agreed with you right uo to the point where he lost his head though/
You need to get out and see how the real world works mister because in your little corner of it. You are starting to sound more and more like a fraidy-cat then anything else.
I do real world threat assesments everyday Sir. It is what I do for a living!
Wake Up and study some history.
Red Phillips| 11.21.09 @ 2:51PM
See Toddard, this always happens to paleocons. First we are liberals since we are not interventionists. When it is no longer credible to call us liberals, we become too conservative.
Ken, better a conservative trying to bring back the stone age than some poor deluded soul who thinks he is a conservative but is actually a radical Jacobin revolutionary out to usher in liberal democratic Utopia at the point of a gun.
Bydand76| 11.22.09 @ 12:15AM
Red dont go running to your boy Toddard.
Here is the difference between you and me.
I dont think its ok to sit back and let someone hit me. I tend to get a little angry when someone does that.
I am a MMA fighter. I love it. It is a great activity and a great way to stay in shape. I do not fight professionaly. I just study the art and I try to improve my self by sparring and studing new techniques.
SO, If one day I see a friend of mine getting the shit beat out of and if I use your silly little philosphy I will do nothing. Nope. Not my buisness. How dare I involve myself in that persons interests. Whatever!
Using MY Philosophy, I go over there and dirt pound the dickhead who is kicking the snot out of my friend.
Win or lose, I dont really care I am still going to help DEFEND my friend.
Look at this way Red. Who is more likely to get taken out first. The 215 lb guy who looks prepared to meet any challenges?
Or the guy who is 125 lbs and looks like he just got done playing dungeons and dragons for the past week? Think about it? D&D is a really cerebreal game Red!
Starting to see my point yet?
I dont think you are either a liberal or a paleo conservative??? which are two words that have been convoluted and twisted around.
I just think your stupid and misguided.
Oh and please leave the religous bigotry out of the debate. Not all Patriots are Christian Conservatives. (It would actually be Jacobite BTW)
You reveal your own iniquities when you do.
Red Phillips| 11.22.09 @ 8:14AM
No Bydand76, I meant Jacobin. Look it up. Let me help you out. Read this.
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/apr/11/00011/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/ryn2.html
To use your analogy, intervetionists are the 215 lb guy fretting and hiding in the corner because the 125 lb meanie threaten to kick you in the shins.
Bydand76| 11.22.09 @ 9:20AM
RIGHT .
Ok Red, If that is the case then why is the 215lb fighter stomping the snot out of everything in its way? You logic is flawed sir! I wholeheartedly and respectfully disagree!
I have fought in this GWOT and I am talking from a firsthand point of view.
This has never been about nation building and never was. The only time that we have started it was after the shooting war was almost over.
Not only that but History shows you tigwits to be wrong.
Germany, Japan, France, Taiwan.
Are you seriously going to tell me that Nation building doesnt work? Especially when the people are receptive to the changes and economic freedom that occurs?
Let me ask you this.
Did you support Clinton going into Haiti?
What about Kosovo and Bosnia?
And it is JacoBITE in the singular sense in which you wrote your sentence! Not Jacobin! That would be the plural usage of the word. Look it up your own damn self!
It seems silly to me that you non-interventionist goons scream bloody murder about keeping our noses out of other peoples buisness and then scream holy hell when we are attacked. Much less you adopt a holier than thou attitude and rail against some perceived injustice and try to interject some sort of hidden agenda ont he part of Christians. It is stupid and you don't know what you are talking about.
You quote an article from 2005 Red. Seriously?
How about WWII? See any parallels there? Remeber the Red Threat? What would have happened if we didnt fight a cold proxy war there and decided to just mind our own buisness. Hmmm? Nu Par Ruskie?
Your philosophy sounds nice but in practice it works about as good as communism.
Did you read the Geneva Convention, The Hague Convention and the Laws of War yet?
I will say this Red.
I will agree with you that America only goes to war when needed but you will never convince me that entering into a pro-active role in engaging the terrorist threat was not the right thing to do.
Someone else said it a little bit more eloquently than I did though!
OUT of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
- INVICTUS
William Ernest Henley.
PRO LIBERTATE!
Margie| 11.22.09 @ 11:31AM
So very, very excellent, Bydand76.
Thankfully, America has always gone to war when needed, thanks to brave men and women like you.
The issue with the non-interventionist, Paleo-conservatives is that they don't believe we ought to fight anywhere but on our own shores. In a fantasy world, wouldn't that be wonderful to be able to afford doing that? But we live in the present dangerous world where real men and real women have to fight elsewhere.
God bless.
Red Phillips| 11.22.09 @ 1:17PM
Bydand76, go back to school or try reading a few books. A Jacobite is someone who wanted to return the Stuart kings to the throne of England. Jacobins were the radical leaders of the French Revolution. I was not accusing Ken of being a monarchist. I was accusing him of being a radical revolutionary who thinks he is a conservative.
Bydand76| 11.23.09 @ 9:50PM
Ok sorry Red.
I misunderstood your usuage of the word. My apologies in regard to that and yes I do know the difference.
I would have thought my moniker "Bydand" would have given that away.
Bydand means "Steadfast" in old Gaelic or "Stand and Fight" in the Scots dialect.
And yes I am a member of the clan that uses this word as their motto.
I still disagree with you though.
Tim| 11.20.09 @ 10:28AM
What's the beef? Obama has already said that these guys will be found guilty and put to death. No problemo.
L. Ross| 11.20.09 @ 11:13AM
My big gripe with this peace is our collective inability to call a spade a spade. Or even a shovel. We are not really engaged in a war in the traditional sense. Not one that makes much sense to our Western mind. We are engaged in jihad against muslim religious nut jobs. Sadly, we don't regard our conflict as jihad, but I can assure you that each and every one of them do. That is what makes this current conflict so difficult to manage, let alone win. muslims have their own personal call to jihad and act in coordinated or independent ways to bring down the Great Satan. Of course, they do not wear uniforms, and are not part of a military. The conventional rules of war are difficult to apply here, because they are based on the notion of one standing army fighting another. Frequently, these are not even organized guerilla attacks. Just farmers or army psychiatrists out to do the will of allah and kill infidels. I am afraid that unless we are willing to fight with similar barbarism and unleash the full might of our military, our efforts will be ineffective. Almost every stable government in South West Asia came about with a purge bordering on genocide. Widespread bloodshed seems to be the only thing their primitive way of thinking respects, and it seems to be the only thing we will not do.
Ryan| 11.20.09 @ 12:34PM
If I trusted the Euros and the Muslim countries (which I don't), it would probably be worth doing another Geneva convention to talk about terrorism; the problem would be it would immediately point the blame at the US and Israel.
L. Ross| 11.20.09 @ 11:15AM
Whatever you want to call our enemies in this conflict, I believe it is a huge mistake to call them soldiers. We need to call them jihadists.
Pingback| 11.20.09 @ 11:48AM
The American Spectator : What Has Changed? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Margie| 11.20.09 @ 1:10PM
A caller to Glen Beck's show nailed it: The reason Obama is allowing this Fed. Cort trial fiasco is so that, in his usual manner (of that voting 'present'), he doesn't have to deal directly with his fellow Muslim brother, and he also doesn't have to anger his brother Muslims. He gets to seem 'neutral.'
Coward.
Ryan| 11.20.09 @ 1:17PM
Right about the first part (voting present) wrong about the rest. Despite popular crackpot belief (sorry, it is), Obama is NOT a Muslim. At worst, he's into black liberation theology.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.20.09 @ 2:39PM
Ryan
OH? You are God now to discern Obama's heart?
Oh, OK! I'm clear now.
He was raised somewhere between communism and Islam????????
OK, knothead, which do you prefer?
Margie| 11.20.09 @ 4:54PM
Ryan,
Didn't he "re-do" his swearing in to the Presidency of The United States of America so that he could swear on the Koran?
That isn't evidence enough?
Red Phillips| 11.20.09 @ 8:40PM
What are you talking about Margie? Are you a troll deliberately trying to make conservatives look like buffoons? He re-did his swearing in, as he should have, because he flubbed up the oath, a specific oath that is specified in the Constitution.
Margie| 11.22.09 @ 11:18AM
If I am wrong about his swearing in on a Koran, then I stand corrected. However, he was born to a Muslim Dad and so I've been told it makes him one. In his autobiography he does say he will "stand with the Muslims." I think we've seen this so far. It is also quite clear that he mocks the Bible. There's a video posted for anyone to see, so he obviously isn't a Christian.
~I call 'em as I see 'em.
Margie| 11.22.09 @ 12:19PM
p.s. Keith Ellison, a Democrat Rep. is a Muslim, and he was sworn in using a Koran.
The Koran says to "kill the infidels"~~ that would be US.
ccc| 11.20.09 @ 2:29PM
I thought the general opinion of the Spectator was that the US was not fighting soldiers and that justified dispensing with the Geneva conventions. Now Kerchoefer is calling for the enemy to be considered as soldiers does he want the geneva conventions to be applied?
Pingback| 11.20.09 @ 4:34PM
The American Spectator : What Has Changed? Wikipedian links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Sam| 11.20.09 @ 5:15PM
One of the things I appreciate about conservatives is that they tend to have more guts than the Dems.
But somehow all that chess pounding, pro-America bravado disappears with regard to trying Gitmo detainees.
Honestly, what are you people afraid of? That they will escape? This is the United States of America and you are afraid the most feared yet impotent individuals under our charge will escape?
Or perhaps you're afraid we'll get attacked. Since 9/11, our government has proved that while it can't do a lot of things, it can keep us safe. The FBI and CIA are as strong as ever.
Or maybe you're afraid a handful of prisoners will be let off since there's no evidence against them. Why then, are they there in the first place?
Let's start showing some courage. These prisoners are IMPOTENT compared to us. Your fear is laughable. Stop being Dems and show some guts!
Vick| 11.20.09 @ 8:16PM
Sam,
We are not afraid. We are outraged.
The fact is these terrorists were not arrested by law enforcement in the course of an investigation then read their Miranda rights and allowed to retain legal counsel before being interrogated. Therefore, according to established legal precedent, any confessions obtained from these individuals will not be admissible as evidence against them. Furthermore, if they had been Mirandized (which they weren't), those who were subjected to "enhanced interrogations" could argue their confessions were obtained under duress. This decision has gotten us into a trick bag of cosmic proportions. My fear is that it is intentional.
Howard Ino| 11.20.09 @ 6:01PM
Holder, Obama and company are only interested in the political gain from the criminalization of the murdering "detainees".
This is but a bone for far left radicals (ACLU, etc) and trial attorneys!
They do not give a gDamn about our national security and aiding our enemy, as long as they gain politically.
THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN CHICAGO POLITICS!
For we must understand... their true enemies are the small business owners, grandmothers and families that attended the town hall meetings to oppose their Marxist agenda... Not a bunch of murdering terrorists!
Pingback| 11.21.09 @ 10:30AM
Civilian Trial or No Civilian Trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? | Conservative Herita links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
DaveS| 11.21.09 @ 12:33PM
Marc Rich funded the Clintons and the wife gave money to the Clinton library. Holder worked the Clintons. He recommended the Marc Rich pardon. Or at least that's the story. Obama needs a Bush punching bag. The 'trial' in NYC is a way to fabricate a convenient one. Democrats should never be allowed to make important decisions., because they prove all the time that what you get is completely indefensible.
Bill Sundling| 11.21.09 @ 3:22PM
The 9/11 conspirators weren't soldiers fighting for a country on the battlefield. They were terrorists attacking noncombatants. They should be tortured for information and executed.
gary fouse| 11.21.09 @ 4:49PM
As a DEA agent (now retired), I spent my career working with the federal courts in prosecuting drug traffickers. Though I am not a lawyer, I do know the rules of procedure pretty darn well. Unless there are some provisions of the Patriot Act that I don't know about, this is what I see coming.
Once these defendants are brought to the US, here come the defense lawyers. Here come the motions for discovery of evidence against their clients-including probably, evidence that is sensitive to our intelligence-gathering process including the identities of foreign sources (and informants) who wish to remain secret. What foreign intelligence service is going to want to work with us on terror matters now knowing that they are likely to be divulged in a US Federal Court?
Do you doubt for a moment that the defense lawyers are going to claim their clients' rights to a speedy trial have been violated since they have been sitting in Gitmo for some 5 years. (Defendants in federal courts have a right to a speedy trial.) How about throwing out the confessions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed based on the fact that he was water-boarded? Do you really think his confessions are going to hold up? How about evidence gathered from wiretaps not approved and sign off on by some federal judge? How about a challenge for change of venue since New York was the scene of the World Trade Center attack. Obviously, these poor defendants cannot get a fair trial there. And by the way. The president has now stated that these poor guys will be convicted and executed.
Get ready for a big circus trial in which the defense throws out all the dirt about Bush, Cheney, the Patriot Act, Gitmo, the NSA intercepts, waterboarding and everything else they can think of.
I can really see whoever the judge is assigned to these trials throwing the cases out of court altogether. Even if not, and the defendants are convicted, the appellate courts and the Supreme Court will eventually get involved.
These prisoners in my view are not entitled to anything other a military tribunal. They don't qualify for the Geneva Convention, and there is no need to hand them over to the federal courts. Is this what we are going to do with every terrorist we capture overseas? Watch our courts get clogged up in a hurry.
The example that should have been followed is the case involving the German saboteurs who landed on our shores in World War II, were captured and tried by military tribunals. (Most were hanged.) That is exactly what should have happened here. Instead, our government now chooses to hand them into the federal court system that may eventually have to kick them free on some legal technicality.
But you know what? I suspect Obama, Holder et al already know this.
Gary B| 11.21.09 @ 5:48PM
Couldn't have said it better, my friend.
Margie| 11.22.09 @ 11:39AM
Great, great post! Thank you.
Of course Obama knows this. This is his way of not having to deal with his fellow Muslim directly. Hand him off to Holder, put all Americans through this despicable fiasco, not to mention put us all in danger, especially NYC. This way he gets to be "neutral" once again, when in REALITY~~ there IS no neutral. He is proving once again where his loyalty lies, and it IS NOT with us!
Big J| 11.22.09 @ 9:32AM
This is for Toddard, Liberal Reader and all you other believers that America is a mean, nation-building country full of torturers and meddlers who should simply leave well enough alone - in spite of the fact that there are many people around the world who wish to do nothing more than destroy us, simply for our beliefs in freedom, commerce and spirituality.
(sorry for the run-on, I'm just a little riled up)
Take 9 minutes out of your busy day bashing this great country, and watch this video:
http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afte....._War/2716/
This is by far the best case against trying these murderers in federal court that I have heard yet.
Bannockburn| 11.22.09 @ 12:35PM
Mr. Korchenheiffer is right! PC and the liberals desire to, "understand everyone's feelings" will be our downfall. Terrorists will hide behind our generous rights to freedom of speech and then attack us at every opportunity. Ironically, they will show no mercy to those liberals who previously gave them a floor to, "talk things out" and who, "tried to undestand" them.
Once again libs - get the message - terrorists only exploit "negotiation" or "understanding" to delay so they can do what they want at our expense, e.g. How are the negotiations going with Iran right now? Stalled and epic fail for the US.
Bottom line, try KSM in a military tribunal and fry his ass without mecy.
Andrew B| 11.22.09 @ 6:47PM
KSM is guilty as sin. He should die. He should already have died. That being said, there is no possible way he could be found guilty IF American rules of jurisprudence are followed.
He was not Mirandized. He was not provided with legal counsel. He was interrogated in ways that US criminal courts do not allow. Now, thanks to Attorney General Holder and President Obama, we face a terrible dilemma.
If he is found guilty in civilian court, it will only be by ignoring or actively flouting our rule of law. If he is found not guilty, it will be a horrible miscarriage of justice and a sign of fatal weakness. The President has made it possible for justice to be done only if we are willing to completely discard all legal safeguards.
And these are the same clowns who said "Bush is shredding the Constitution!"
I mourn for my nation.
stmichrick| 11.22.09 @ 6:52PM
I can't believe no one gets it.
The Obama/Holder reasons to try them in civilian court are:
1) If anything goes wrong, discredit the Bush Administration.
2) If things work out, discredit the Bush Administration.
Period.
Pingback| 11.28.09 @ 6:58PM
Leona Lewis: The X Factor is no longer just about singing | TV … | Leona Lewis Celebr links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.30.09 @ 9:09PM
News Ticker: Chris Brown, Gorillaz, Ronnie James Dio, Al Alberts … | Chris Brown Cele links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Lieuer Euy| 1.17.10 @ 7:47AM
I have surfed the net more than three hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours. It's worth enough for me. Thanks.
Computer Blog Technology | Identify What Is My IP Address Region
aa| 4.3.10 @ 9:01PM
www.us-chloeoutlet.com