More Republican Fear-Mongering

Remove all ads!

Drew, I know the theory. I just am too cynical to believe it. As for the re-trial, they can have 2 or 3 re-trials, but it is my understanding that after a couple of hung juries, the prosecution drops the charges and the accused walks, simply because the prosecution doesn't want to waste more taxpayer money.

As for being eliminated during the selection process, my cynicism tells me that a true bleeding heart won't show his/her true colors to the prosecution, but will lie like a cheap rug so as to follow their bleeding heart agenda of enabling. I don't trust these people to be honest, decent, logical, or give a rat's hind end about the victims.

 

So, are we saying that because the attack was on US soil, it is not an act of war? If so, I don't get it. McVeigh was a US citizen, so I understand trying him in our Federal courts. But extremists from other nations? What's the difference between them plotting attacks and a General plotting an attack that falls into the category of war crimes? Would that General be tried in our Federal courts as well?

 

Typically a general is under the command of a sovereign government. While he can be charged with war crimes, the terrorist description doesn't really fit. A look at the charge that the Bush adminstration brought against ZM illustrtaes why he was brought to trail in a criminal court:

In other words, the defendant violated US laws and committed criminal acts against its citizens and property. That makes it a criminal case in the opinion of the Bush officials who brought the specific charges.

 

Honestly, I don't really care whether they go before a tribunal or a federal court, just as long as they go before one or the other. I don't think it will make much difference in the outcome, and I think strong arguements can be made for either one.

As for the other complaints, they're ridiculous and idiotic.

 

I never implied it wasn't a act of war, only that KSM and his co-conspirators are not being tried for being enemy combatants, so T2's and TGS's claims that we should try enemy combantants who tried to kill Amercian soldiers at military tribunals doesn't really apply.

I agree completely - I think these guy will fry no matter where their case is heard.

 

I'm curious as to why this thread was named "More Republican fear-mongering"? From what I've seen the Democrat Governor of NY is opposed to it and according to Rasmussen a majority of people seem to have a problem with it.

 

If the Dem governor of NY is opposed to it, he is the first elected Democrat I've seen come out and be unhappy of the decision. On the other hand, I have seen dozens of Republicans (mostly Congressmen, but of course all the Republican talking heads on TV and radio as well) blast the decision. I called it "Republican Fear-Mongering" because the vast majority of those vehemently opposed to the decision are Republicans.

EDIT: I think the reason you see 51% opposed to it among voters is (I suspect) that most voters don't realize this is how we've dealt with terrorists in the past. From what you hear from some people on the news and radio, you'd think that using a military tribunal was the no-brainer decision, and that using the federal court system was an unusual means of dealing with these types of criminals, when actually it would be more unusual if the military tribunal were used.

I do have one more question - if KSM gets the death penalty (which in my opinion is a near certainty), does anyone really care whether it was the federal court or a military tribunal?

 

It doesn't. But what seems lost in the debate, is that these guys can be aquitted in a military court as well. I know people think that the guys that sit on those courts are like a bunch of hangin' judges from the old west, but they can still be just as fair as any in a federal court. But "military tribunal" sounds much more ominous. Regardless, they will look at the same evidence.

 

Several mistrials can be cause for dropped charges. What you leave out is that any case that has hung more than a few juries is going to be...less than clear-cut. Open and shut cases don't typically hang juries. They definitely don't hang them 2 and 3 times in a row.

Since I'm sure I qualify as a "bleeding heart," I'd like to hear more about my agenda of "enabling." I'd also like to know why I would lie to get onto a jury instead of doing what most people do -- lying to get out of jury duty.

Further, I'd like to know how you come to the conclusion that a "bleeding heart" would support freeing a terrorist like Khalid Sheik Mohammad, responsible for the deaths of thousands of people....especially since every one of the 37 terrorists we've tried in the American judicial system thus far has been found guilty. What precedent can you cite for this idea? More importantly, why would a military tribunal be any different. I served, so "bleeding hearts" exist in the military, too, you know. Some of them even have stars and bars, too. A tribunal is not a guarantee of conviction or sentencing any more than a civil trial. I could see your "bleeding heart" pushing for life in prison instead of the death penalty, but acquittal? Nonsense.

 

Simple answer, Drew -- after years of discussing things with you, in my book you are not a bleeding heart. You actually listen to the other side of an argument. Bleeding hearts do not -- they are too busy drowning in the voice of their own self-righteousness.

 

But LKD, you didn't answer the heart of Drew's assertion. Do you seriously think any jury would acquit KSM? I don't care how many "bleeding hearts" you have in the jury, the 9/11 attacks have left an indelible mark on everyone in the US old enough to remember it. And seeing as how people not old enough to remember it are also not old enough to be on a jury, every juror will remember that day. I agree with Drew - it is conceivable that your hypothetical jury could chose to sentence this guy to life in prison over the death penalty (though I think that's unlikely). Though unlikely, I can at least consider it possible. Given that we've had 37 trials of terrorists in the nation, and none have been found not guilty, I think you are over-stating your case.

 

OK, to the heart of the matter -- I agree that 9/11 has left an indelible mark. But marks fade over time, and I've found that people start to come up with the most ridiculous excuses for the criminal behaviour of others as time goes on*.

I worry that people will forget and let their liberal thoughts and concern for the criminals' rights override justice for those who are dead and no longer can speak for themselves.

I'm glad to hear that in those 37 trials the slime has been found guilty. I hope this trend continues, truly I do.

* I've heard rape victims say "I made him mad, and he is a passionate man, so it was really my fault that he tied me up and raped me." And the scary thing is that they say **** like this with conviction.

 

Um... An indelible mark, by definition, does not fade with time. I chose the word indelible specifically to stress that it isn't something that would go away, be removed, or fade from memory.

Are you suggesting that they are going to put families of the victims of 9/11 on the stand during the trial?

EDIT: That said, it might be hard coming up with a jury. Ideally, you want to pick jurors who have no prior knowledge of the charges at all when making the selections. For something involving 9/11, that simply isn't possible.

Secondly, with all the conspiracy theorists out there, you definitely don't want to take someone who believes 9/11 was a plot by the Bush administration or any other whack-job theroies.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I would imagine that a not-insignificant number of New Yorkers (of which the jury will be comprised) have a family or friend that was directly involved or affected by the 9/11 attacks. You don't want them on the jury either.

 

Ahh. We have a definition problem, then -- I used it thinking it meant a mark that will never permanently go away. In that case, the mark is not indelible. I don't think any of them are, in the sense that we are talking. After WW1, people were saying "never again" and look what happened. People looked at the utter debacle of Vietnam and said "never again" and now here we are in 2 foreign countries mired in a war that we choose not to win.

I think the at people will remember 9/11 for the next century but as time goes on they will start to make excuses for the terrorists who did it -- heck, that started pretty soon after the towers went down. I fear that as more people prone to this sort of enabling are given time, they will lose sight of the horrible loss of life inflicted by the terrorists and focus more on the rights, thoughts, and feelings of the terrorists. That scares me.

What I was suggesting is that a lot of people who are the victims of a crime can, in an effort to be forgiving people, become enablers for their attackers. Some of these people could end up on a jury. I do not think that there will be 9/11 victims called to the stand.

 

I do not know about excuses but in some way I am surprised at the vehemence against these guys. What they did was no different from any other political leader planning an armed strike at a civilian target. Which is no matter how you spin it something every politician and military will do if they are involved in a conflict.

I would love to see an international tribunal to put all these people on trial and hopefully lock them away or put them on display somewhere for all eternity but that aint going to happen as more or less all of the most powerful men in the world are guilty of crimes similar to 9/11 to a greater or lesser degree. Nice that KSM gets his comeuppance but where is the comeuppance for the French president during the Algeria war? The Chinese leaders in Tibet and other rebellious provinces? The Israeli leadership for the atrocities they order in Gaza? A long long line of American presidents, generals and politicians? The Soviets in Afganistan? Sure some Serbs have been put to trial but they forgot rule number one when ordering mass killings of civilians, make sure you are on the winning side or at least part of one of the most powerful countries in the world (or have the blessing of one).

Punish the plotters of evil by all means but remember that for everyone that is brought down there are ten more out there most of them respected and loved by the very people who are outraged by the one that was brought down.

 

Joac - You could have also included the fire bombing of Dresden. But why not go for the big one, like Nagasaki? You also could have mentioned Pol Pot, who managed to die of old age. Still, no matter how politicians try to spin this act into a "war" it is not. It is terrible crime, carried out by private individuals, and not a "war" in the real sense of the word. These guys are criminals in every sense of the word. It is the GWB adminstration that spun this into some kind of war and created the confusion that we are confronted with today. At least that's how I see it.

Many of us asked the same question at the beginning: "How do we know when the war is won, or over?" When the last terrorist is dead?

 

This exchange between Lindsey Graham and Eric Holder is pretty entertaining. Graham had him stumped.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...ttorney-general-holder-stumped-lindsey-graham

 

KJ - Your post and link only proves the confusion over this issue. It's not a war and there are no "enemy combatants." We sent the army to round up a bunch of criminals. If the army picks up looters in New Orleans, are they sent to criminal court or to military court? I don't know the answer to that for certain, but I would guess to criminal court.

 

I would agree with you, if these guys were apprehended on U.S. soil. They were not.

 

I find it odd that after getting to know someone who by all external appearances would qualify as a "bleeding heart," you conclude that I am, in fact, not one of them rather than questioning your own basic assumptions about other people who by all external appearances are just like me.