Republicans & Conservatives Archives

The trouble is, Republicans want people to be scared of the terrorists. The trouble is, the Republicans aren’t content to let the President calmly handle things. The Trouble is, the Republicans are willing to disrupt American society severely to meet this threat. The Trouble is, the Republicans handicapped America’s response by predicating it on large-scale warfare, especially in countries that had nothing to do with 9/11.

The trouble is, the Republicans are willing to do anything, even things that endanger Americans’ rights, even things that bankrupt America’s treasury, even things that blacken America’s name and lose it allies, to meet the threat.

The trouble is, Republicans don’t realize that their response is precisely what Terrorists want. They want disruption of our society. They want us shown to be little better than they are by the cruel expedience of our behavior. They want us killing Muslims and making wars in the nations of the Middle East and Central asia. They want us doing any number of things that we did under Bush.

If we move this trial, it will be to make sure it goes forward without costing NYC or the government billions to do it. It will not be to hide, or run scared from bringing the architect of 9/11 to trial. I want this guy drug down from his pedestal, thrown at its base as a mere mortal, that American law and the American legal system are more than capable of putting in a jail cell. I want these people treated and caught as common criminals, not glorified as superhumans that deserve our fear.

Stephen

The trouble is that we don’t have to spend all that money and time to convict this clown. The trouble is that holder has already guaranteed a conviction, so his BS about showing a fair trial is just about as sincere as his support for the Marc Rich pardon.

The trouble with Democrats is that they have no money sense. Why spend billions on what you can get for thousands? KSM doesn’t deserve it. The military tribunals are perfectly fair and nothing will be gained by moving this guy to NYC.

S.D.
Even the Democrats of the State of N.Y. realize that this was a bad idea. With the economy the way it is I would rather see thousands spent instead of Billions. The military can handle this just as well as the Federal Courts but cheaper and a whole lot less intrusive in civilian lives.

Christine-
I have one thing to say about Marc Rich: Scooter Libby. Look it up.

As for money sense? If we didn’t have money sense, why are we looking for another location? Hell, if we were going for money sense, we could bust a cap in KSM’s head (or is it a KAP?) and bill his family for the bullet. Yeah, and we’d show we were real hardcore.

Obama’s trying to save the taxpayer dollars, but we could shoot every criminal or even suspect, and do that. Why don’t we do that? Why bother with the expense of due process, especially when the criminals are so big that it would just be more convenient to assassinate them?

C&J,

Just curious, where was your outrage here?

At the heart of this issue is a simple proposition. Americans hold to one set of rules for all, or they maintain one set of rules for themselves, and another more onerous set for everyone else. Which is going to underwrite America’s leadership role in the world? To abandon our rules when applied to others, we are no better than a dictator in Somalia or 1960’s Haiti, who exempts themselves from the law of the land.

If our system is flawed and cannot handle trying terrorists in our courts, then our system is flawed and should not be applied to American citizens, either. If our fear is letting criminals, regardless of their crime, pass through our justice system only to be freed to commit their crimes again, then our fear speaks not to the issue of terrorists, but, to our own system of justice.

Do Americans have confidence in their justice system, or not? That is the heart of this issue, and the rest of the world bloody well knows it, even if Americans do not.

DRR&SD
Holding the trials for these guys down in Gitmo makes better sense then having them in NYC. Why spend billions when thousands seems better especially in this economy? Not mentioning the disruption it would cause to the busiest city in the world. Not saying our justice system is flawed far from it. The security is already set up in Gitmo or do you guys think our Military is flawed or can’t handle the trial?

Your point is that Eric Holder has similar ethics in this the Rich case as Scooter Libby? And you think this is a good argument? I think you have to preface this sort of argument with that venerable preamble – “I am rubber and you are glue; it bounces off me and sticks to you.”

So let’s grant your premise. Holder and Libby have similar ethics and both should be out of government.

Re – Money sense – I was following your rhythm with “the trouble with…” So now you support the change of location. Welcome back.

I do not accept your extrapolation about shooting criminals. That is your formulation, not mine. Defend it if you want.

I am saying that we have a perfectly just and acceptable trial method in military courts. It was going that direction, until Holder employed extraordinary measures to put it off track on onto a truly stupid and expensive alternative. I cannot think of any GOOD reasons why he would do that. He doesn’t seem like a stupid man, so I conclude he must be craven and should lose his job.

Gergle

The big difference is that the allegations in Florida were not substantiated, even after they were investigated to death. The Black Panthers were seen on tape. The Justice Department had evidence. Holder specifically called off a successful operation. Can he be that stupid or is he dishonest and craven? You make the call.

David

I have great confidence in our legal system and i understand that we have an excellent alternative in the military tribunals.

We supporting our system of justice by using that. Holder just made a serious mistake based on his flawed understanding. As I asked Gergle, can he be that stupid or is he craven and dishonest? This man has to go before he does any more damage.

Christine says “The military tribunals are perfectly fair”
8 years without a trial,I hope you don’t mind if I chuckle at that statement.

Jeff

Whether or not you think the timing is wrong, the amount of time w/o the military tribunal makes no difference to this argument.

Christine, other than your post being completely wrong? First of all it should be a debate not an argument, secondly, if you didnt want it challenged and if it had no bearing on the argument, it shouldnt have been used. Now what would have been fair was their right to a trial, any trial. That Christine s the American way, not the Republican way.

I am using argument in the classic sense. An argument is something you make in a debate. You may use the word debate if you want. I don’t care about the pedantry.

My point is that the fact that eight years have passed is part of a different … argument. In the end if you have a military tribunal or a civilian trial is a separate issue.

You may be confused also about the military tribunal. It is a type of trial with somewhat different procedures and rules of evidence. That’s it. It applies to a different class of defendants. Holder never said military tribunals were unfair. If he did he would be in even more trouble and would be wrong. Holder just decided that it would be better to have a showy civilian trial and decided that it should be in New York.

The choice of venue is what we are debating. If you want to debate that military tribunals are unfair, you might want to try a different … venue. I doubt you will find many people to take your side. Even Holder doesn’t question the principle of the military tribunals in general.

C&J,

I think the point is that if we were going to go that route, these “tribunals” should have taken place long ago. That they have not is a shame upon America in general, and our past, and our present administrations in particular, and now that it has become a political football, doubly so.
These defendants have been in limbo for eight years awaiting their “day in court”.

“Holder just decided that it would be better to have a showy civilian trial and decided that it should be in New York.”

And this assumption is based on what? Hyperbole?

The time is long passed to poop or get off the pot.
Let’s get on with it.

Rocky

Rocky

yes - my statement re showy trials is hyperbole, but there is no other explanation I can think of to hold this kind of thing in NYC. Holder didn’t provide one. In fact, his statement about wanting to show the world implied a show trial.

Re the military tribunals - the delay is a different issue. You can argue that the trial should have been held sooner, but there is no reason to conclude that a different sort of trial is required only BECAUSE of a delay.

So I don’t object to your idea to “get it done” but it will be better, cheaper and just as fair to get it done in the military tribunal away from Downtown Manhattan. And it will probably get done a lot faster.

The big difference is that the allegations in Florida were not substantiated, even after they were investigated to death. The Black Panthers were seen on tape. The Justice Department had evidence. Holder specifically called off a successful operation. Can he be that stupid or is he dishonest and craven? You make the call.

Nonsense. This DOJ did an equal amount of internal investigation that was done by that DOJ. It is up to you to show otherwise. Just declare one allegation factual and another not, is not an argument, but a simple declaration. It is Holder’s job to make determinations of priority and focus, as it was Gonzales’. Video of Republican attacks on vote counters was on the MSM news, as were the documented phony purge lists verified.

There is no bite to your dog.

Christine,

You appear to presume that military tribunals are a readily available, expeditious and legally adequate alternative to trial in federal court. That is not quite accurate. The military tribunals set up for prosection of the Quantanmo detainees have been plagued by extensive delays and litigation. The original structure of the tribunals was declared illegal under US law and under its treaty obligations (Geneva Accords) by the Supreme Court in 2006 (Hamden). Congress passed an alternative structure more consistent with the UMCJ and the US constitution. However, it has been subject to additional litigation. In 2008, the Supreme Court held that detainees have rights of habeas corpus.

There is a reason that only two detainees have ever been successfully prosecuted under the tribunals and one of those was a plea bargain.

In contrast, the federal courts have a successful track record of expeditiously trying terrorism suspects and obtaining convictions which have survived appeal. Richard Reid, for example,is a convicted prisoner serving his sentence in a maximum security prison. Guantanomo detainees captured at the same time as Reid continue to languish in a legal limbo.

Military tribunals may have some limited theoretical advantages. However, from a practical standpoint, they have not proven to be very efficient or effective.

Gergle

It is not up to me. The Florida allegations were found to have no merit. As far as I know, no INDIVIDUALS were indicted.

In the Black Panther cases you have actual video of particular individuals in a specific location.

Rich

The military tribunals can be made to work as well as the civilian trials. The terrorists and their lawyers are doing their best to create the delays. They will do the same with civilian court, only it will be a better propaganda venue for them.

Beyond that, there are two problems. Only one is the civilian court. The other is the venue in Manhattan. This is the one that Obama will have to force Holder to back off.

Gergle

I forgot to add this quotation from the link you provided -

“No witnesses could attest to having seen any law enforcement officer block voter access to the
Progress Village polling place, or otherwise intimidate voters or deter their participation. The only Election Day police activity career voting staff could document near this polling place was an unrelated mid-afternoon burglary call on the same street as the polling place, two blocks away, to which two cruisers responded. Because no evidence of voter intimidation or
discrimination was discovered, the investigation was closed.

It is just hard to follow up allegations if you cannot find any crimes and you cannot find any witnesses.

“The military tribunals can be made to work as well as the civilian trials”

Well, maybe. But not so far. One, and only one, real conviction by military trial in eight years is an abysmal track record. As for the delays being attributed to the terrorists and their lawyers, welcome to the rule of law and our Constitution.

“In the Black Panther cases you have actual video of particular individuals in a specific location.”

Likewise in the Dade County, Florida case in which a mob of approximately 150 Republican supporters stormed the Supervisor of Elections office stopping the recount. It was a clear case of intimidation of election officials. There was media video of the event: particular individuals in a specific location. But, they were wearing suits, not black garb.

Rich

I think the problem is that the terrorists are waging “lawfare” against us. Do you think that KSM doesn’t play to tie the civilians court in knots?

These guys are not interested in a fair trial. They want to cause as much trouble as possible. We should provide them with as little opportunity as we can.

IMO we should just send them to a prison with lots of other violent offenders and let them mix with the general population. You remember that’s how they took care of Jeffery Dahlmer.

Rich

Re Florida - So charge those individuals. I wa unaware that the Justice Department threw out charges as they did with the Black Panthers.

Although I wonder what crime that would be in Florida. It could clearly not be an example of voter intimidation. It would probably no longer be a Federal crime at all. You could call it a protest that turned into a riot. Riots are local matters. I suspect that if we created that kind of standard, the left would be in trouble a lot more often.

Christine,

I wasn’t referring to those allegations. There WAS video of the Texas Thugs attacking the vote counters in Florida. No difference from your supposed Black Panther video…which was also determined to not have merit sufficient to pursue charges BY THE DOJ, just like you are now whining about. You just don’t like the outcome this time.

Christine,

Do you think that KSM doesn’t play to tie the civilians court in knots?

Do you honestly think that plan will work? Really?

Gergle

If thugs attacked people in Florida, they should have been prosecuted, just as the Black Panthers should have been. A crime is a crime.

Your apparent argument that others have done it is not really very effective in letting these guys and Holder off the hook.

Re KSM - I think his plan may well work. They have already tied us up in “lawfare”. Remember how Milosevic screwed up the court in the Hague?

KSM’s goal is to be convicted after a long and painful trial.

Christine,

It is not the terrorists that are waging “lawfare” against us, it is their dang military lawyers who keep initiating and pursuing litigation. It is that darn conservative Supreme Court that keeps finding terrorist rights like Habeas Corpus and throwing out military tribunals as failing to conform to US law and treaty obligations. What bothers me is not the use of federal courts, per se, but the discriminative use of those courts. A few get tried in federal court, some in military tribunals,others? We really need to establish clear criteria for the handling of terrorist suspects, be it military or civilian courts. Agree that general population incarceration may have some benefits not obvious at first glance.

A Republican administration can’t find any federal violations for the organizers of the “Brooks Brothers” riot. A Democratic administration doesn’t find sufficient evidence to pursue charges against the Black Panthers voter intimidation. I am not surprised.

Rich

The Justice Department did INDEED find enough evidence and was on the verge of convicting the Black Panthers when Holder threw it out. Do read the article in the link.

IMO, President Obama is actually got the right idea about terrorists in at least some cases. The predator strike doesn’t allow appeals.

Although I am glad that they took KSM alive, since evidently some of the information he gave saved American lives. Maybe we should let him go back to Afghanistan and hit him with the predator a few minutes after he sits down with a few of his buddies.

Christine,

…did INDEED find enough evidence and was on the verge of convicting…

Your article does not support this, and is conjecture on your part. What you don’t like is the decision made by Justice. That is the same thing as the Florida incident.

If you don’t try a case, how can you be on the verge of convicting? Nonsense argument.

Christine,

Lets be clear about the Black Panther case. It was a civil suit brought by the Justice Department during the Bush administration against the two individuals identified at the polls and the leader of the national Black Panthers. It was the Bush Justice Department that decided not to seek criminal charges.

The civil case proceeded to default stage. There would be no trial, no necessity to present evidence as to the allegations. The Obama Justice Department decided then to proceed against one of the defendants, the one weilding a night stick and obtained a judgment for an injunction. The case was dropped against the national leader since there was no evidence that the national leadership actually ordered or directed the individuals to engage in voter intimidation.

In my opinion, Justice acted appropriately by dropping the charges against the national leader. It had no evidence against the party, only conjecture. To obtain a default decision that could be construed by some as indicating intent and action by the national party to engage in widespread voter intimidation without ever having to prove such allegations would be an injustice itself. This was an isolated incident by Black Panther members and there is no evidence of any other actions or attempts of a similar nature across the country.

In contrast to the Black Panther case, the Bush Justice Department failed to seek any action against the organizers of the “Brooks Brothers” riot even though it was part of a Republican organized effort to “shut down” the voter recount proceedings in Dade County.

Gergle

Some of the Black Panthers didn’t even show up for court or make a response. The government could have won by default.

It was just wrong. We disagree about this. I saw the tape. These thugs were standing outside the polls, dressing in that fake-military garb those guys wear. They had sticks and were giving threatening glares to people walking in. In my polling place, nobody is allowed even to stand at the doors at all. If you find that sort of behavior acceptable, we disagree.

I think it is wrong for Black Panters, Neo Nazis or anybody who has that sort of background to appear in their “uniforms” at these places. Sorry if I am intolerant of this.

Rich

You want to argue the Florida case. Fine. If indeed those guys committed crimes they should have been prosecuted and if there was evidence, whoever was at Justice at that time should have filed charges. That person no longer works for the USG. Holder does. So let’s have them both out of office.

“It was just wrong. We disagree about this.”

Speaking for myself, I don’t agree with your conclusion. Voter intimidation of the type alleged should be criminally prosecuted. The Bush Justice Department declined to do so.

The disagreement has to do with the determination of the Obama Justice Department to drop certain actions against two of the three individuals named in the civil suit. This is particularly important as it relates to the allegations against the national New Black Panther leader. There was no evidence that he ordered or instructed his party to engage in widespread voter intimidation. Sure, the Justice Department could have obtained a default judgment against him. But would that have been justice?

Rich

The situation you describe in Florida was not strictly speaking VOTER intimidation. I am not sure it is/was a Federal crime. If it was, they should have prosecuted those and if the proper authorities didn’t do it they are as bad as Holder.

Of course, it should have been the CLINTON justice Department that brought the initial charges, as the Bush Administration did with the Black Panthers. In which case had Ashcroft dropped the charges, he would have been acting like Holder. But that is not how it happened, was it?

So who was it that didn’t file those charges? Was that still Janet Reno? So both she and Holder should not hold Federal office. We agree.

J&C,

Re KSM - I think his plan may well work. They have already tied us up in “lawfare”. Remember how Milosevic screwed up the court in the Hague?

KSM’s goal is to be convicted after a long and painful trial.

Ronald Reagan, that leftie, through his socialist apparatchik Paul Bremer,espoused this policy:

Another important measure we have developed in our overall strategy is applying the rule of law to terrorists. Terrorists are criminals. They commit criminal actions like murder, kidnapping, and arson, and countries have laws to punish criminals. So a major element of our strategy has been to delegitimize terrorists, to get society to see them for what they are — criminals — and to use democracy’s most potent tool, the rule of law against them.

According to Mitch McConnell, it’s not only Ronald Reagan, but also George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, who were too far to the Left when it came to the treatment of accused Terrorists. McConnell said today on CNN that Bush’s mistakes were giving civilian trials to some accused Terrorists and releasing too many people from Guantanamo. McConnell likely speaks for the bi-partisan establishment, as he confidently predicts that there are more than enough votes — from both parties — for cutting off funds for trying accused Terrorists in civilian courts.

Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush: Far Leftist Civil Libertarian Extremists.

We have to respond in different ways to different conditions. It is best if we can respond to terrorist as ordinary criminals, but it doesn’t always work. War situations don’t work well in court. Neither does organized crime or piracy. Terrorism has aspects of all three.

We handled these kinds of offenses better at times in the past. We don’t need to extend all the “improvements” to these guys.

Do you really think that we will come out better if we try KSM with a high profile event in NYC? He and his lawyers will take to opportunity to attack every aspect of U.S. policy.

Think about if two people go to divorce court. Nobody comes out looking good. One party might make false allegations of abuse and everybody figures that where there is smoke there is fire. It gets nasty.

I understand that some lefties see this as a way of “putting Bush on trial”. The news is that Obama is president now and the attacks on the U.S. will stick to whomever is around. It is bad all over.

BTW - I suppose you are somehow trying to associate Reagan with left wing nut cases. We all believe in rule of law. We disagree with its exact applications in all cases.

J&C,

No, I’m trying to associate your position with the wing nut righties…where it belongs.

You abandon any belief in American values, like rule of law, at the first puff of wind, especially if you think it makes the Democrats look weak.

Reagan was a centrist, like Obama compared to the scare tactic drivel in this post.

Christine,

What kind of trial do you want for KSM, a secret trial? Whether before a federal court or a military tribunal, KSM is going to be able to contest evidence and present a defense. His appointed civilian or military lawyer will not roll over for the state. Avoidance of federal court is no panacea for avoiding KSM dirty laundry or propaganda. In fact, I would trust seasoned federal prosecutors and federal judges to manage terrorism cases more effectively than military lawyers operating in a new and unfamiliar tribunal structure only established by Congress in 2006. Why not let the pros handle these cases in an established legal structure?

Rich

As I understand it, the accused have fewer grandstanding rights in military courts. We can also hold them farther from civilization.

As I advocated above, maybe just put these guys into the general population at a maximum security prison. See if they can make deals with the Aryan Brotherhood or the Bloods. We can even make a reality TV show. I would pay money to see that.