« Blips on the Radar Screen | Main | At The Corner At The End Of Our Block »
Obama and KSM: The End Game
November 18, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
I think you are very close.
What is actually going to happen is that the charges will be dismissed with prejudice because he was not properly Mirandaize before he freely bragged about his actions.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon | Nov 18, 2009 10:41:37 AM
Do the riots come before or after 1? And where does the attempted terrorist strike come in?
Posted by: mike | Nov 18, 2009 10:47:40 AM
Obama today: "I'm not pre-judging; I'm not going to be in that courtroom, that's the job of prosecutors, the judge and the jury."
In 2006, Rudy Giuliani testified against Zacarias "20th hijacker" Moussaoui in a federal court in Virginia under the Bush administration when military tribunals were an option. He had this to say about it: "It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial, that we are exactly what we say we are. We are a nation of law... I think he's going to be a symbol of American justice."
Now when talking about the KSM trial, he criticizes Obama for doing the same thing he had praised only 3 years before: "If there was no other choice and they had to be tried in New York, of course they should be tried in New York. But the reality is there is another choice (just like the one not taken in 2006). It is a better choice for the government. This choice of New York is a better choice for the terrorists. Why would you seek to give the terrorists a better choice than you’re giving the -- than you’re giving the public?"
Fewer than 10 terrorists have been convicted in military tribunals while close to 200 have been successfully prosecuted in federal courts.
So what exactly is the disconnect?
Posted by: tpulley | Nov 18, 2009 3:34:58 PM
Terrorism is an act of war, not a criminal action. Criminal courts are not the proper venue for dealing with terrorists.
When terrorists have been released from Gitmo, they have been recaptured on the battlefield, trying to kill Americans--again. Clearly, those incarcerated in Gitmo can be dealt with in only two ways: life imprisonment or execution.
Incidentally, before political correctness took hold, the way that people who tried to kill American soldiers outside the rules of war* was simple: summary trial and execution. We should go back to the old ways.
*According to the Geneva Convention, only those in an armed force, wearing a military uniform, have the "right" to (try to) kill the enemy. All others who try to kill soldiers are spies or illegal combatants, and are not protected under law.
Posted by: Sparticus | Nov 19, 2009 12:04:10 AM
Sparticus has the right idea. Where has our collective brain lost its mind?
Posted by: radar | Nov 22, 2009 10:23:26 AM
> Where has our collective brain lost its mind?
Ummm... The Left Hemisphere?
:oD
Posted by: OBloodyhell | Nov 27, 2009 10:38:52 PM
> All others who try to kill soldiers are spies or illegal combatants, and are not protected under law.
Unfortunately there's an idiotic declaration (1958?) which is an addendum to this which effectively eliminates the entire idea of illegal combatants. There's no logic to it, which is both its appeal to The Left as well as a defense for the terrorist appeasement crowd.
Posted by: OBloodyhell | Nov 27, 2009 10:42:47 PM
