Democrats & Liberals Archives

Get The Rope, It's Lynchin' Time

“If we are stuck with this terrible Obama Administration decision, I, like most Americans, hope that Mohammed and his co-conspirators are convicted. Hang ‘em high.”

These aren’t the ignorant ramblings of some trailer-trash Evangelical, they are the ramblings of the once vice-presidential candidate and former governor of Alaska, Sara Palin. According to her we should abandon our American principles, deny someone a trial, and march strait to the lynching tree with our torches held high.

It is sad and frightening that someone who came so close to being one step away from president, and who still could conceivably make it that close again, would express such a barbaric and anti-American sentiment. And what’s worse is that there is a stream of this mutated consciousness pouring in from all around the country; actual denunciation of the American justice system in favor of shooting an accused man in the back of the head.

“Horrible decision, absolutely horrible. It is devastating for so many of us to hear that the Obama Administration decided that the 9/11 terrorist mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be given a criminal trial in New York. This is an atrocious decision.”

We all know that Sarah Palin is several oil barrels short of a socialist state, but what audacity and hubris she shows in actually admonishing the decision to put Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on trial in the very city he attacked. As much as his attack was an attack on the nation as a whole, he attacked New York City, it’s property, and it’s people. What better place to hold this man accountable than in the very same place he sealed his fate? And to make herself look even more foolish and partisan, Palin expects it to be common knowledge that certain people do not deserve a fair trial?

I was always taught that here in America you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. I would think there is ample evidence to support the charges against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed so that we would be able to punish him accordingly through the very system of justice he despises so much. What better, more suiting outcome could there be to this whole episode?

Are we supposed to abandon our very beliefs and values just for quick, bloody revenge? That’s not very Christian-like if you ask me. And yet the poster child for "American values" thinks we should execute this man without a trial. Showing ones true colors is always a revelatory moment, but what makes this worse is that so many people seem to agree. The “voice of the people” section of my daily newspaper seems every day to offer at least one opinion from an average American calling for the immediate execution of suspected terrorists. Some have even written in suggesting that putting a bullet in the back of this man’s head would be acceptable and the right thing to do. That sounds very Nazi-like to me. It looks like we have more in common with our heathen, false-religion following enemies that we'd like to admit, especially those who purport to be of such higher morality.

Posted by Michael Falino at November 15, 2009 4:00 PM
Comment #290829
It is devastating for so many of us to hear that the Obama Administration decided that the 9/11 terrorist mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be given a criminal trial in New York. This is an atrocious decision.”

Yes she hopes he is convicted, like every American, but it’s quite another thing for a vice-presidential candidate to proclaim how awesome it would be to see a man be hung. Have some tact. She’s completely incapable of acting like a reasonable, intelligent, adult.

And this is hardly a smear article as you say. I am simply expressing my disgust for such a foolish person who has such frightening potential to actually influence the country I love.

Posted by: Mike Falino at November 15, 2009 5:55 PM
Comment #290832

Nothing like a gratuitous declaration of bloodlust to let us know a conservative politician is in the house.

Posted by: phx8 at November 15, 2009 6:52 PM
Comment #290833

To hope for the death penalty of a person BEFORE they have been tried and either convicted or deemed innocent, is the point in Palin’s comment which begs the spotlight. She mentioned Mohammed by name.

That is very different than saying she hopes the guilty persons are hanged. She has, in her mind, already tried and convicted him and is now waiting for the hanging. That is UNAmerican, and in contradiction to the founder’s precepts and Rights of protections against the awesome powers of those in government. Once again, Palin demonstrates her ignorance of what is important to government leadership.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 15, 2009 7:04 PM
Comment #290834

It seems my point was not lost.

Posted by: Mike Falino at November 15, 2009 7:09 PM
Comment #290841

So David, did the Sec of State demonstrate her equa ignorance this morning on Meet the Press?

You know, I was a senator from New York, and I — I want to see them brought to justice. The most important thing for me is that, you know, they pay the ultimate price for what they did to us on 9/11.

By having two paths of justice, civil trials for some and military trials for others, the only conclusion you can make is that the outcome has already been decided. That’s not justice that’s a Broadway show.

Posted by: George at November 15, 2009 9:43 PM
Comment #290842

Gee even Hilliary wants them dead. You all going to chastise her like you are Palin?

Posted by: KAP at November 15, 2009 10:19 PM
Comment #290848


And we should give war criminals rights under our constitution? What is your suggestion if he gets off on a technicaliity or we have a hung jury?

Second “hang ‘em high” is a phrase not to be taken literally.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 16, 2009 12:18 AM
Comment #290850

Don’t know if Hillary means the perpetrators of 9/11, or not in her use of the word, they.

Palin spoke of Mohammed SPECIFICALLY before trial and determination of guilt. I am not surprised the difference is lost upon some of those supporting the Republican/Conservative point of view.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 16, 2009 3:02 AM
Comment #290851


War crimes are “violations of the laws or customs of war”. War is distinctly different from insurrection, or individual or even group crime. War is conducted between nations or between the people’s of a nation over control of that nation.

Terrorists like Timothy McVeigh or Nichols, or Mohammed or the Blind Sheik, are criminals, do not represent ANY nation, and are not subject to the treaties and laws pertaining to war.

This notion that terrorists are war criminals was an invention of Dick Cheney and GW Bush to circumvent international laws and treaties and our own Constitution in their treatment of suspects of terrorism. In other words, this notion came from authoritarians who make up their own rules as they go along in disregard for inconvenient documents like the U.S. Constitution.

One person just killed many at Ft. Hood. An American Soldier. This does not constitute an act of war anymore than does the hijacking of a couple of airliners to use as weapons constitute an act of war. Somalians hijack foreign national ships for blackmail, and kill those who don’t pay. That is piracy, not an act of war.

I am a bit surprised that you appear to have bought into the authoritarian Orwellian redefinitions offered up under the Bush administration.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 16, 2009 3:13 AM
Comment #290852

KAP, Yes I will proffer the exact same argument against Clinton if she meant THESE SPECIFIC persons under arrest, instead of the perpetrators. We all want the perpetrators to receive the just response for their crimes under the law. Whether these persons under arrest are those perpetrators, or not, is a question yet to be determined - which is an indictment of the Bush Administration for having circumvented the justice system for so long.

Would you want your police to have the power to arrest and detain you for 8 years before your case ever came to trial to determine whether or not you were innocent or guilty?

We all want justice to be visited upon those who played a part in perpetrating the 9/11 attacks. But, as Americans, we SHOULD also want to insure to the best of our ability that those we convict, are in fact, the ones involved in that perpetration. To fail that, not only do we inflict harm on innocents, but, we very likely allow the real perpetrators to go free, thinking the innocents were the perpetrators. Our judicial system is designed to help prevent just such a scenario.

Is it perfect? No. But, then perfection is not achievable in the province of human social systems. To strive for perfection should be a requirement, however. Our judicial system is one of those aspects of our society which continues to command respect around the world by freedom loving people’s and nations. Let’s not seek to bring this shining light of American history into shadow, as well.

Clinton does owe the public, and her boss, a clarification of her word “they”, if she wishes to place a degree of separation between her remarks and those of not ready for prime time, Palin.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 16, 2009 3:29 AM
Comment #290853

George, see my reply above to KAP, in response to your comment addressed to me.


Posted by: David R. Remer at November 16, 2009 3:32 AM
Comment #290857

I think a majority of the people in this country fell the same way Palin and Hilliary feel.

Posted by: KAP at November 16, 2009 6:25 AM
Comment #290861


Here is the transcript for context.

Hillary wasn’t parsing her words with regards to “these people” (that launched this horrific attack against us). Reminds me of why I voted for her.

Posted by: George at November 16, 2009 7:00 AM
Comment #290862

“These aren’t the ignorant ramblings of some trailer-trash Evangelical, they are the ramblings of the once vice-presidential candidate and former governor of Alaska, Sara Palin.”

You assume that the term “ignorant trailer-trash” is mutually exclusive of “governor of Alaska” and “vice -presidential candidate”. I would argue that it is self evident that that is not the case.

Posted by: bills at November 16, 2009 7:07 AM
Comment #290863

Right on, If the attack on the twin towers wasn’t an act of war then Pearl Harbor wasn’t either. But if I remember back in 1998 or so Bin Laden did declare war on the U.S. and we laughed at him.
The statement that Palin made did say convict. Does not that mean a trial.
This guy will walk free, he did not have his rights read to him, he was tortured, didn’t have legal representation, never had a bail hearing, didn’t have a legal extradition hearing. Now for his trial where are you going to find an impartial jury in New York?, Or any where in the US for that matter. Sure I believe this guy is guilty and should pay the ultimate price, but he wants to be a martyer. This trial is going to be a bigger circus then the O.J. Simpson trial ever thought of being. I wonder if the glove will fit?

Posted by: papioscar at November 16, 2009 7:13 AM
Comment #290864

The 9/11 attacks could not have been an act of war. When exactly did we declar “war”? Not the next day.

Posted by: mike falino at November 16, 2009 7:23 AM
Comment #290866

If 9/11 was an act of war, why didn’t Cheney/Bush declare war on Saudi Arabia? If he had done so, all but the turture and rendition might have been legal.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 16, 2009 12:45 PM
Comment #290867

I think it’s important that we win the fight to remain a country whose strength lies in the rule of law, in a system of government that takes out the guilty without taking out the innocent with them, that doesn’t fall prey to the notion that all must be made suspect and be spied on by their government for us to keep tabs on those who really deserve the scrutiny.

The thing people miss is that folks will still be fallible in their decisions, in their knowledge, and in their thinking and deductions, even if they are handed the powers to be judge, jury and executioner, to look into anybody’s house, e-mail or whatever.

We can give people God-like power over us, but not God-like judgment. That, of course, will always be a lousy combination, not the least of which because we have a limited amount of attention, resources, and manpower, and the more we waste it on the innocent and uninvolved, the more people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will have the chance to get away.

If the conservatives are so worried about what our mistreatment of the man might do to increase his chances to get off on a technicality, they might have considered that before they tortured him. Ironically enough, if a technicality does set him free, it will only be because of what the Bush Administration did to him. If they had done nothing of that sort, then the Obama Administration would have no problem prosecuting the man.

Restraint has its benefits, people. Some options, once taken, once entertained, burden people with consequences that they’ll grow to find very inconvenient as time goes on.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 16, 2009 12:48 PM
Comment #290869

KAP, at one time, a majority of whites felt slavery was necessary, to include our founding fathers. Doesn’t make it right or good for our nation’s future. The blend of democracy and a republic has been one of the great strengths of our nation.

Many on the Right argue for, and against, mob rule or democracy, as their argument requires. One cannot succeed long by such arbitrary definitions, and policies of the worst kind are those which contradict each other, often a tell-tale sign of authoritarian governments, saying one thing and acting in contradiction.

Are you arguing for mob rule on this particular question by asserting that public opinion may agree with Palin and Clinton? Public opinion agreed with Sen. McCarthy in the early 1950’s too, but, that was a real black eye chapter in American history.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 16, 2009 1:20 PM
Comment #290871

George, thank you for the link. Yes, Clinton said nearly the same thing as Palin, that the most important thing IS NOT due process and a fair trial, but, that they pay the ultimate price. Her use of the word “They” can only be interpreted as her previous reference to the “self-proclaimed perpetrators of 9/11”.

And she is wrong. If it turns out that even one of the self-proclaimed terrorists, was not in fact a participant in 9/11, but, just a nut seeking recognition and attention, then justice would NOT be served by their paying the ultimate price for their misrepresentation.

Palin and Clinton have both put prejudice before justice and due process in their comments.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 16, 2009 1:30 PM
Comment #290874

papioscar illogically stated: “Right on, If the attack on the twin towers wasn’t an act of war then Pearl Harbor wasn’t either.”

Japan was a nation state which attacked the U.S. military at Pearl Harbor. Under international law and treaty, that IS an act of war. The attack on the twin towers was NOT perpetrated by another nation state, just a rabble of criminals with a destructive value system. The Mexican Drug Cartel are foreigners who attack our government’s officials and attempt to confiscate our national parks and wildlands for their own criminal purposes. They are not enemy combatants of war, they are thugs and criminals with an agenda.

Failure to observe these differences is buying into the government of George Orwell’s book, 1984, which brainwashes its people to believe whatever the hell the government needs the people to believe. Your comments appear to have bought GW Bush’s double and newspeak, hook line and sinker. But, then, so did so many others in our society. Not one of our finer moments.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 16, 2009 1:39 PM
Comment #290875

mike falino said: “The 9/11 attacks could not have been an act of war. When exactly did we declar “war”? Not the next day. “

Illogical argument. If a nation state perpetrates an act of military hostility upon another nation, that act is an act of war, regardless of whether the attacked nation declares war on the attacking nation or not.

The 9/11 attacks are not an act of war because they were not perpetrated by another nation, or the people within a nation toward others in that same nation (civil war) and its government in order to wrest control from that government.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 16, 2009 1:47 PM
Comment #290876

they say you can learn a lot about an individual by the way they treat animals. and palin’s record is horrific. hunting animals from the air, and the most disgusting thing i had ever seen in my life was the turkey being killed while she stood by it and laughed, and held an interview. (i mean, what was that?!? it still gives me nightmares)

i always find it so hypocritical when these right to lifers stand by frothing of the mouth yelling kill, kill, kill.

listen, she’s a monster in a skirt.

Posted by: bluebuss at November 16, 2009 1:50 PM
Comment #290877

Stephen D, you make a valid argument, but, that is going to be one enormous pill for the people of this nation to swallow, and very likely, a plurality will never accept it. I expect our AG to prove true to his word that there is sufficient independent evidence to try and convict these detainees other than their confessions made under illegal torture. Failing to convict them, will constitute a failure on the part of both the Attorney General and indirectly the President for having appointed him.

There will be no more important case the AG will try on behalf of the American people, than these self-proclaimed architects and perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. He had bloody well be successful on the people’s behalf in conforming to our federal laws in his prosecution and obtaining 1st degree murder charges from the jury.

A failed outcome, however, doesn’t invalidate the argument, that the Bush administration is responsible for creating these conditions by circumventing the Constitution and international treaties and definitions, in the first place. That is a matter of historical record.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 16, 2009 1:57 PM
Comment #290878

bluebuss, can’t accept your far LEFT wing valued argument that those engaged in the professions of killing are not entitled levity and jocularity during their work day. You aren’t seriously suggesting that slaughterhouse workers be fired for laughing at a good joke while on the job, are you? Or, that our soldiers should be dismissed from their duties for breaking up the stresses of war with some levity? Please tell me it isn’t so.

I deplore the killing of any living creatures for the joy of killing. But, that is NOT what was taking place in the background of that Palin footage. The turkeys were to become food. Killing them is how that is accomplished. There is no horror in this, if you are NOT a vegetarian.

If you are going to critique Sarah Palin, do it on legitimate grounds, not these fabricated misrepresentations alluding to Palin enjoying killing for the pure joy of killing. By all accounts, the Palin family hunted for food, as a great many Alaskans have and still do today.

Those who eat meat from a grocery, simply hire contract killers via their purchase, to secure their food for them. Many meat eaters don’t recognize this, but, it is factually true, nonetheless, and they are not horrible people for seeking affordable proteins and needed amino acids to maintain their own sustenance.

Only when those proteins and necessary amino acids can be produced artificially without killing animals, at a comparable or lower price, can the value argument be made that meat eaters elect to kill for joy of killing.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 16, 2009 2:11 PM
Comment #290880

i wasn’t questioning the right of a worker to work at a farm. why do you always do that? SARAH DOES NOT WORK AT A FARM.

it was gross, and i am questioning HER HOLDING A PRESS CONFERENCE AT A SLAUGHTERHOUSE.

please read what you write before hitting the post button.

Posted by: bluebuss at November 16, 2009 2:19 PM
Comment #290881

bluebuss, ahh, so you are saying slaugherhouse workers are people to be ashamed of and not appear in the background like cafeteria workers or factory workers so often do as a background to politician interviews, eh?

No. I think you should take your own advice and read what YOU write before hitting the post button, thank you very much. Americans doing their legal jobs is nothing to be ashamed of. And BTW, was this location Palin’s choosing, or the media’s in catching up with her there? Assumptions will make an ASS out of even a Republican like Sen. Specter. Must be careful about those to avoid prejudging what is not known.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 16, 2009 3:18 PM
Comment #290882

remer - you have taken my opinion of palin and twisted it. you have made it so i am anti-worker, anti-nutrition, and anti-alaskan.

i wouldn’t dare speak for anyone other than myself. and as for workers being ashamed - i was never speaking of the workers.

only you and rhinehold can twist a comment so crazily that one is completely anti-american. did you graduate from the karl rove school of assholes?

Posted by: bluebuss at November 16, 2009 3:31 PM
Comment #290883


I didn’t see David twist anything. You made a comment that he extended out to its logical conclusion based on the ideas you presented behind it. Perhaps instead of lashing out that it wasn’t what you meant, you could have gone back and seen where the mistake was made and corrected it?

You are upset with Sarah because she was laughing while a turkey was being slaughtered. By your own suggestion, we should be upset with anyone laughing or not being morose around any animal that is being slaughtered. I think David has rightfully pointed out how this attack on Palin could be carried on to all who dare laugh while this process is going on.

There are SOOO many things that you can attack Sarah on, it is a bit of a puzzle why you pick this, unless we take from that that you are genuinely upset about such a behavior, in which case there are a lot of other people you are going to need to be upset about.

BTW, thank you for including me in this thread, I had been staying out of it pretty much but calling me out has gotten me intrigued. :)

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 16, 2009 3:48 PM
Comment #290884

I wonder if Palin was laughing as she shot at wolves and perhaps other animals from a helicopter…I also wonder if she ate the ones she hit…

Posted by: Marysdude at November 16, 2009 4:08 PM
Comment #290885


To me she is a distasteful person of little taste.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 16, 2009 4:09 PM
Comment #290886

Where do you get that I advocate mob rule? I am stating just like Palin and Hilliary that if these guys get anything less than the death penality than I pity BHO and Holder.

Posted by: KAP at November 16, 2009 4:15 PM
Comment #290887


#84 & #85 are addressed to bluebuss.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 16, 2009 4:18 PM
Comment #290888

bluebuss, see Rhinehold’s reply to you. No point in repeating the obvious.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 16, 2009 4:41 PM
Comment #290889

KAP bewilderingly wrote: “DRR, Where do you get that I advocate mob rule?

KAP, I guess you missed the QUESTION, entirely.

“Are you arguing for mob rule on this particular question by asserting that public opinion may agree with Palin and Clinton?”

Calm down, read what is actually written, and respond appropriately.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 16, 2009 4:44 PM
Comment #290890

Not mob rule, but Palin and Clinton stated after due process they would like to see these guys get death penalties as would IMO most people in this country. The only MOB RULE would be in 2012 via the ballot box if these guys walk on technicalities.

Posted by: KAP at November 16, 2009 5:24 PM
Comment #290896

KAP, I believe you are now inventing the news, instead of responding to it. NO!!! Palin DID NOT even intimate that trials and findings of guilty should precede hanging them. Leaving her vulnerable to the objective criticism that a military tribunal should just be a formality before the hanging of these Individuals begins.

Clinton did reference the proceedings, but, also alluded to their being a mere formality in order that ‘Their’ hangings then commence. No reference whatever to their innocence or guilt being deliberated, which is what our Constitution calls for. Just a reference to their punishment as a foregone conclusion requiring the formality of a trial. Which violates the intent and spirit of the founding fathers creation of a jury system of hearing and deliberation of the evidence from both sides of the case, before rendering a verdict. Seems to me, picking NY, the site of the crime, begs the defense to make motions for change of venue due to a prejudiced jury pool amongst the NY citizenry.

Both Palin and Clinton are pandering to the gut level of the lesser educated regarding our Constitution and laws, as opposed to the caliber and quality of our adversarial judicial system, whether that was their intent, or not.

Where is the presumption of innocence in either of their comments. Our Constitution calls for the presumption of innocence unless proven otherwise. Many a nut case has confessed to crimes they did not commit for vanity, ego, or unearned infamy, as veteran police are well aware. The presumption of innocence is the obligation of every federal employee who takes the oath to defend and protect the Constitution of these United States, since it is a core bedrock foundation of that system of checks and balances between the awesome power of the government and those in its offices, compared to the accused individuals whether citizens or not.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 16, 2009 8:10 PM
Comment #290899

Palin said she hopes that they are CONVICTED. What dose it take to be CONVICTED, A TRIAL. Quit playing with words. Clinton said basically the same thing. The only pandering is the liberal BS you are pushing. There is probably enough evidence down in Gitmo to convict these guys 10 times over.

Posted by: KAP at November 16, 2009 8:52 PM
Comment #290903

Tell me we’re not going down the Obama is a sleeper agent route. Please!

Posted by: Mike Falino at November 16, 2009 9:28 PM
Comment #290909

You know David you talk constitution real good but where was the constitution when loud mouth Murtha had those Marines fighting in Hadathia guilty before their day in court. Or Bush and Cheney guilty before any investigation. Liberals threw out the constitution then didn’t they.

Posted by: KAP at November 16, 2009 11:01 PM
Comment #290919

Good article about this very topic.

Posted by: mike falino at November 17, 2009 7:33 AM
Comment #290958

rhinehold, i couldn’t leave you out, you are my favorite graduate. :)~

why i am hung up on the slaughterhouse deal - i find it just so sickening. i mean, it really was truly sickening to me. that is my personal opinion, no one need not put words in my mouth, or draw any conclusions. it is nothing deeper than what i am stating. the turkey kill was just so disturbing to me, i wish i had never seen it. somethings you just can’t take back, and wish i had flipped the channel.

not deep, no conspiracy, not anything to connect the dots to, just plain sickening.

Posted by: bluebuss at November 17, 2009 4:47 PM
Comment #290961

A very good analysis of the predicament we face in dealing with captured terrorists can be found in this paper put forth by Stratfor Global Intelligence. Following are just a few excerpts from the article which can be found at:

“Whatever the politics of this decision — and all such decisions have political dimensions — the real problem faced by both the Obama and Bush administrations has been the failure of international law to evolve to provide guidance on dealing with combatants such as al Qaeda. International law has clung to a model of law governing a very different type of warfare despite new realities. International law must therefore either reaffirm the doctrine that combatants who do not distinguish themselves from noncombatants are not due the protections of international law, or it must clearly define what those protections are. Otherwise, international law discredits itself.

Which was Mohammed? Under the Geneva Conventions, his actions in organizing the Sept. 11 attacks, which were carried out without uniforms or other badges of a combatant, denies him status and protection as a POW. Logically, he is therefore a criminal, but if he is, consider the consequences.

International law wants to push Mohammed into a category where he doesn’t fit, providing protections that are not apparent under the Geneva Conventions. The United States has shoved him into U.S. criminal law, where he doesn’t fit either, unless the United States is prepared to accept reciprocal liability for CIA personnel based in the United States planning and supporting operations in third countries.

A new variety of warfare has emerged in which treatment as a traditional POW doesn’t apply and criminal law doesn’t work. Criminal law creates liabilities the United States doesn’t want to incur, and it is not geared to deal with a terrorist like Mohammed. U.S. criminal law assumes that capture is in the hands of law enforcement officials. Rights are prescribed and demanded, including having lawyers present and so forth. Such protections are practically and theoretically absurd in this case: Mohammed is not a soldier and he is not a suspected criminal presumed innocent until proven guilty. Law enforcement is not a practical counter to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. A nation cannot move from the rules of counterterrorism to an American courtroom; they are incompatible modes of operation. Nor can a nation use the code of criminal procedures against a terrorist organization operating transnationally. Instead, they must be stopped before they commit their action, and issuing search warrants and allowing attorneys present at questioning is not an option.

How do you try a man under U.S. legal procedures who was captured in a third country by non-law enforcement personnel, and who has been in military custody for seven years?

Holder has opened up an extraordinarily complex can of worms with this decision. As U.S. attorney general, he has committed himself to proving Mohammed’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt while guaranteeing that his constitutional rights (for a non-U.S. citizen captured and held outside the United States under extraordinary circumstances by individuals not trained as law enforcement personnel, no less) are protected. It is Holder’s duty to ensure Mohammed’s prosecution, conviction and fair treatment under the law. It is hard to see how he can.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 17, 2009 5:01 PM
Comment #290977

The worms are getting out of the can…we must put them back in the best we can. Besides the one chosen by Holder, there are really only two other courses, Kill the sucker or turn him loose. I think the President is doing the only thing he can morally and ethically do. This one will have to set the precedent for future similar cases, so we’d better get it right. I would not be President of the United States right now for all the money in China.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 17, 2009 10:27 PM
Comment #290994

From his interview with Chuck Todd

NBC: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — can you understand why it is offensive to some for this terrorist to get all the legal privileges of any American citizen?

Obama: I don’t think it will be offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.

Well at least Todd pushed him when he gave that answer (kudos to him) as you can read in the linked transcript. But is there any doubt now that this is a show trial plain and simple?

And then Obama says, “Absolutely (to military commissions) well in fact Eric holder announced that half of the people being prosecuted right now are going into military commissions because of the specific factors involved.”

Todd let him slide on what those “specific factors” are, but I’m sure one of them is a guaranteed outcome.

The decision has been made. According to the President, the Sec. of State, and even Sarah Palin KSM is going to be executed. Better to do that through a military tribunal and get it over with FDR style then to make a mockery out of our civil judicial system.

Posted by: George at November 18, 2009 11:02 AM
Comment #291001


Nice find on the quote, I wonder how many Obama supporters who were lambasting Palin for her comment will now turn their ire onto Obama for saying the same thing…

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 18, 2009 12:50 PM
Comment #291002

In a May 21 speech at the National Archives, Obama himself said:

“Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; they allow for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot always be effectively presented in federal courts.”

Is it Obama’s argument now that Khalid Sheik Mohammad did not violate the laws of war? Is it Obama’s argument now that the United States does not need to protect sensitive sources and methods used in gathering intelligence on Mohammed and his al-Qaida affiliates? Is it Obama’s argument now that the participants in Mohammed’s trial will not need the safety and security provided by a military commission? Is it Obama’s argument now that the case against Mohammed does not involve evidence gathered on battlefields that cannot be effectively presented in federal courts?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 18, 2009 1:08 PM
Comment #291027

What laws of war have been violated? And, by whom? Are we talking about the war on drugs? The war on…??? Calling something a ‘war’ does not make it so.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 19, 2009 7:06 AM
Comment #291055

violations to the geneva convention set up so pow will not be tortured. do you realize who broke these laws? bush.

so, let’s continue this discussion, and let’s get the names of the guilty correct.

so, if you want to continue, please insert the name bush everytime you mention obama. then, and only then will you begin to be correct.

palin stated time and time again ahmadinejad was the president of iraq. over, and over again. i feel that EVERYONE on this site knows it is iran. she is a waste of space.

Posted by: bluebuss at November 19, 2009 1:23 PM
Comment #291081

Good points. If you want KSM to be tried militarily then you have to accept that Bush broke nearly every rule of war.

That there is debate over this frightens me for the sanity of this country. What Timothy McVeigh did, was that an act of war? Why didn’t we declare war on Somalia after they hijacked and kidnapped our citizens?

KSM is a criminal of the worst kind. If he get’s off it’s because Bush screwed up or our prosecutors will have screwed up.

Posted by: Mike Falino at November 19, 2009 6:22 PM
Comment #380608

bad, louis vuitton handbags choosing a stylish case longchamp can also louboutin be longchamp a true religion jeans great option. Thin supra shoes rubberized cases can provide a marc jacobs fun splash reebok shoes of color, valentino shoes or prada handbags eye-catching new balance shoes design to your device. These items ghd hair will allow chanel handbags you longchamp outlet to express your herve leger personality through your oakley sunglasses phone burberry and also soccer jerseys can be toms shoes used polo ralph in michael kors outlet keeping your louboutin phone clean and birkin bag free converse shoes from tory burch outlet cosmetic defects. Furthermore, coach purses in such cases, insanity workout an additional amount soccer shoes is north face outlet added to the chi hair straighteners device.

This bottega veneta phone is one of nfl jerseys the coach outlet most versatile louboutin options when salvatore ferragamo it comes karen millen to mont blanc modern ray ban outlet Smartphone. However, this device can lululemon outlet be improved hollister by true religion outlet adding appropriate ralph lauren accessories. coach factory outlet Choosing mulberry the right accessories is mcm handbags the perfect louis vuitton outlet online way coach outlet store to asics running get the juicy couture outlet best coach outlet experience with any true religion Smartphone.

Posted by: korsu001 at July 6, 2014 11:33 PM
Post a comment