The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Geitner rightfully under fire for wasting millions in taxpayer money on AIG bailout.........

Geithner Singled Out In TARP Watchdog Neil Barofsky's Scathing Report On AIG Bailout

Representatives calling out administration for flawed reporting of stimulus package.......

Dave Obey Chides Obama Administration For 'Stupid Mistakes' On Stimulus Reporting

Here's a report detailing some of the information, including the administration having to slash 60K jobs that were reported as 'created'. Certainly understandable that inaccurate information was reported from the field, but the verification effort before publishing the information by the administration officials was questionable at best........

The Magically Appearing Stimulus Jobs - The Note

[Jon]

Originally Posted by molson

It's more of sham to put him on a civilian trial where you know the outcome is pre-determined by the government (and not by the jury, judge, statutes, rules of evidence, or anything else that's a part of our criminal justice system) than it is to give him a fair military tribunal with processes and rules of evidence more appropriate for international terrorists and war criminals (not because they're "obviously" guilty, but because there's unique evidentiary concerns and risk that come with those "crimes", and these people are NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS)

The former is just like the Soviet Union. It's just sad to see.

I mean, we have the president and the AG coming out and saying, out loud, that he'll get "justice" in the U.S. system, just "blocks from the scene of the crime". If they said that, pre-trial about ANY other domestically-tried murderer, that would be a clear ground for appeal, and probably a bar to future prosecution. They're utilizing the prestige of their office to encourage potential jurors to vote guilty on something other than then evidence, of which we know little. But this is a special defendant. They're calling it a civilian trial, but its clearly not.

Prosecutors publicly comment about "justice" where the crime occurred all the time. It's what they do. Scan the media on less famous cases that are high profile locally and you see this very frequently. If a prosecutor wasn't confident of a conviction, as others have pointed out on this board, they would be neglecting his or her duty.

As far as the Constitution not applying to non-citizens--that's not true. If you are an immigrant here in the United States, and are arrested for committing a crime, you are subjected to the criminal court system, tried via due process (including the right to counsel), and serve your time if punished. Should you be the subject of an immigration hold, then you're released to the custody of ICE AFTER your time is up. Even those at Gitmo have constitutional rights--see Boumedienne v. Bush, et al. Non citizens also are protected by the First Amendment and other protections in the Bill of Rights as well. The Fifth-Sixth-and Eighth Amendments don't apply to deportation proceedings, because they are considered administrative, rather than criminal. That distinction applies to all administrative hearings, regardless of citizenship status. Obviously, there is no blanket applicability, as the 14th makes specific references to citizenship (but also specifically states that no person shall be denied due process of the law.

This isn't a specific response to the above quote, but I think a lot of people are unnecessarily concerned about KSM getting an acquittal. As much as Obama campaigned against Bush and his policies, what is providing a nice safety net are judicial decisions that were pushed by the past administration that will permit certain evidence obtained by torture and other means to be admitted. And, there are so many exceptions to hearsay, etc, that the evidence will likely get in. (Besides, the Administration has already said that even if he were acquited, doesn't mean they would let him go).

I also find it odd that we talk about standing up to terrorists, but are afraid to be American and subject them to criminal justice system. Our system can handle it--our system will handle it. We've done it before. Will it be a little uncomfortable coming into work with all of the security at my building (I work right near the courthouse)? Yeah. But it's worth it to show that we can handle things our way.

I'm also angry with people like Guiliani and Mukasey who say that the Justice system is not equipped to handle it. It's tragic that both don't have faith in their former workplace. Even more agregious is that Mukasey was the judge in the earlier trial and seemed to do a good job with it. As for the argument that it makes NYC a bigger target (as evidenced by the earlier attacks). They returned to WTC because they didn't finish the job in the first place (That's AQ's modus operandi). Besides, NY, being what it is, is a target anyway. That's why there' security.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Jon

Prosecutors publicly comment about "justice" where the crime occurred all the time. It's what they do. Scan the media on less famous cases that are high profile locally and you see this very frequently. If a prosecutor wasn't confident of a conviction, as others have pointed out on this board, they would be neglecting his or her duty.

It can go too far. This is pretty unprecedented, when the president and AG basically guarantee a conviction and tell us all how guilty he is and how we can trust the jury and the system to "do justice". Prosecutors can ask for "justice", but they have to do it based on the facts of the case, not patriotism, or a trust in the prestige of the federal government, which we're getting pretty close to. We may not there yet, but I've certainly seen (and worked on) cases appealed for much less (there's quite a few cases about prosecutors committing misconduct because they've encouraged a jury to give a victim or victims the government's version of "justice", as opposed to a neutral justice that the evidence actually supports (even if those two things are inherently the same). KSM will be found guilty because the government has already expressed to us that he's guilty. It will very difficult for the prosecutor to dance around that and try to sell the guilt solely on the admitted evidence (whatever evidence is still admissable). (If this was an ordinary case, but since it's not, the prosecution will get far, far more leeway) How can you possibly try this case without improperly appealing to the passions and emotions of the jury? The jury will expect you to.

Originally Posted by Jon

As far as the Constitution not applying to non-citizens--that's not true. If you are an immigrant here in the United States, and are arrested for committing a crime, you are subjected to the criminal court system, tried via due process (including the right to counsel), and serve your time if punished. Should you be the subject of an immigration hold, then you're released to the custody of ICE AFTER your time is up. Even those at Gitmo have constitutional rights--see Boumedienne v. Bush, et al. Non citizens also are protected by the First Amendment and other protections in the Bill of Rights as well. The Fifth-Sixth-and Eighth Amendments don't apply to deportation proceedings, because they are considered administrative, rather than criminal. That distinction applies to all administrative hearings, regardless of citizenship status. Obviously, there is no blanket applicability, as the 14th makes specific references to citizenship (but also specifically states that no person shall be denied due process of the law.

I know the trend is to give every earth-born human being constituional rights, I just strongly disagree with that trend, and worry about how far that trend will go.

Originally Posted by Jon

This isn't a specific response to the above quote, but I think a lot of people are unnecessarily concerned about KSM getting an acquittal. As much as Obama campaigned against Bush and his policies, what is providing a nice safety net are judicial decisions that were pushed by the past administration that will permit certain evidence obtained by torture and other means to be admitted. And, there are so many exceptions to hearsay, etc, that the evidence will likely get in. (Besides, the Administration has already said that even if he were acquited, doesn't mean they would let him go).

I also find it odd that we talk about standing up to terrorists, but are afraid to be American and subject them to criminal justice system. Our system can handle it--our system will handle it. We've done it before. Will it be a little uncomfortable coming into work with all of the security at my building (I work right near the courthouse)? Yeah. But it's worth it to show that we can handle things our way.

I'm not concerned about KSM getting an aquittal, I'm just saddened by the fact that this is a total sham trial with nothing at stake (like you said, the administration will keep him anyway).

If this was a regular murderer, all of the evidence would be questionable. There are exceptions to hearsay, but this is all new ground. It's an evidentiary nightmare. If we had a domestic murderer that was held for years and years without trial, had no probable cause hearing, lacked full access to lawyers and the discovery process, was repeatedly tortured into admissions while he was in custody - that case would end up getting dismissed. We're going to apply more lenient rules in this "civilian trial", because this is a special case. Which cheapens the civilian trial system, IMO. If the defense attorney does his job here, there will be hundreds of motions for evidence suppression and dismissal, and they will take years to hear and sort through. Then comes the appellate process - will the procedure of this case actually create precedent, or will the appellate courts acknowledge this mockery of the justice system and just hold, "we affirm, but let's just never speak of what happened here again, OK, thanks". What's going to happen of course, is there will be special rules and looser evidentiary restrictions for cases of these circumstances. So why not just have a trial with those relaxed rules in a military tribunal, instead of creating a de facto one in the civilian courts?

I'm annoyed by the argument about "not trusting our system". I trust our system fine. But its not a system that's designed to secure convictions every time someone commits a crime. That's not our system, and to try a terrorist that's a continuing national security risk you have to adjust the trial, adjust our system, and take a dump on the constitution to assure that even though we're calling it a "civilian trial", we're going to look the other way on a lot of stuff to make sure we get a conviction. And if we don't get a conviction - he'll still be punished. It feels like the Soviet Union.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Jon

Our system can handle it--our system will handle it.

Our system barely handles the mundane, thinking it can handle this is a fucking joke.

But then again, so is the concern about the well-being of bastards like this one.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by molson

I know the trend is to give every earth-born human being constituional rights, I just strongly disagree with that trend.

It's not a "trend" --it's the status quo. You're seeking a trend in the opposite direction.

I'm not concerned about KSM getting an aquittal, I'm just saddened by the fact that this is a total sham trial with nothing at stake (like you said, the administration will keep him anyway).

If this was a regular murderer, all of the evidence would be questionable. There are exceptions to hearsay, but this is all new ground. It's an evidentiary nightmare. If we had a domestic murderer that was held for years and years without trial, had no probable cause hearing, lacked full access to lawyers and the discovery process, was repeatedly tortured into admissions while he was in custody - that case would end up getting dismissed. We're going to apply more lenient rules in this "civilian trial", because this is a special case. Which cheapens the civilian trial system, IMO.

A lot of this new ground isn't really new ground. The detention was deemed okay, torture was considered legal at the time it happened, and there was a mechanism in place to challenge the detention (as stated by the Supreme Court) that KSM (I think) failed to avail himself of. And, a lot of this new ground has already been decided, at least here in the Second Circuit. A lot of that evidence will be admissible under already decided caselaw, some of which is neither new nor profound. KSM's attorney will likely try everything, but will be shot down during the pretrial hearings.

My feeling is that this isn't going to be a Bush on trial episode. My only problem is that they are seeking the death penalty, which is playing right into AQ's hands, since it makes him a martyr. Once the blind sheik was incarcerated, his status began to drop. That would be fitting here. The circus is the media coverage and certain people trying to use this for their own presidential aspirations.

A conviction in the U.S. criminal justice system, one of the cornerstones of our foundation, would be a middle finger to the terrorists.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Our system barely handles the mundane, thinking it can handle this is a fucking joke.

But then again, so is the concern about the well-being of bastards like this one.

The issue isn't the concern for him, but concern for our justice system and the Rule of Law in this country.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Geitner rightfully under fire for wasting millions in taxpayer money on AIG bailout.........

Geithner Singled Out In TARP Watchdog Neil Barofsky's Scathing Report On AIG Bailout

Representatives calling out administration for flawed reporting of stimulus package.......

Dave Obey Chides Obama Administration For 'Stupid Mistakes' On Stimulus Reporting

Here's a report detailing some of the information, including the administration having to slash 60K jobs that were reported as 'created'. Certainly understandable that inaccurate information was reported from the field, but the verification effort before publishing the information by the administration officials was questionable at best........

The Magically Appearing Stimulus Jobs - The Note

1. Geithner ought to be fired but that doesnt change my opinion that the bailouts were necessary and saved our asses. Something that you'll never agree to and neither one of us can prove what 'couldve' or 'wouldve' happened so continue to pound your gavel of fiction.

2. agreed we should be able to count on the data, like the CBO's. For example when one side 'trusts' the CBO's reporting to the negative they should also 'trust' their reporting when it's the other way too. Most recently that has not been the case. It's been use it when it serves you and discount it when it doesnt, which reminds me of someone...hmmmm

3 is a regurge of 2 but important nonetheless.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But then again, so is the concern about the well-being of bastards like this one.

Well, for me it has nothing to do with KSM's well-being. It has a lot more to do with the well-being of American ideals, and showing that we still adhere to them even when the opponent fights dirty.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Jon

It's not a "trend" --it's the status quo. You're seeking a trend in the opposite direction.

If KSM has constitutional rights, he needs to be set free immediately, because they've been seriously violated. If he has pretend/for-show constitutional rights, we can continue to hold him forever.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Well, for me it has nothing to do with KSM's well-being. It has a lot more to do with the well-being of American ideals, and showing that we still adhere to them even when the opponent fights dirty.

IMO, that's not a reason for the government, under our constitution, to interfere with someone's freedom. Criminal prosecution should be about justice, not about making a show for the rest of the world. The fact that THAT'S the motivation here - to create a show - is why this stupid idea is doomed.

The show is obviously the motivation, because he's going to be punished no matter what. We shouldn't have show trials in the U.S.A. Just my opinion.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by molson

If KSM has constitutional rights, he needs to be set free immediately, because they've been seriously violated. If he has pretend/for-show constitutional rights, we can continue to hold him forever.

Again, that's not the status quo. An aggrieved party has to follow certain procedures. You generally don't get relief sua esponte.
Here, there is a process in place for KSM to challenge his detention, since he has habeus corpus rights, even as an enemy combatant housed at Gitmo. As far as we know, he either (1) hasn't absolved himself of this procedure or (2) has utilized the procedure and a determination was made that he is properly being detained. If he is further alleging constitutional violations, he will make a pre-trial motion for dismissal (among others) and a hearing will be held on this and other evidentiary matters. But it's very hard for a defendant to have evidence stricken or prevail on an outright dismissal because the prosecutors, at least on the federal level, are well prepared in advance for this eventuality. And, most assistant US attorneys are career people who perform admirably regardless of the party in power. I have faith, especially here in the Southern District (which hires only the best and brightest--it's harder to get hired there than at a white shoe law firm), that they will be up to the task.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Interesting take from a foreign journalist who actually rallied behind Obama during the elections, but says Europe was sold a bill of goods regarding climate change that was never delivered by the administration...........

Opinion: Obama Has Failed the World on Climate Change - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

At long last, it appears that the administration will finally include Fox News in one of it's pool interviews according to Major Garrett..........

Major Garrett Among White House Correspondents to Interview Pres. Obama Today - mediabistro.com: TVNewser

[Flasch186]

more spin from MBBF in his intro:

'At Long Last, it appears...' 'finally'

continuing a drum beat of assumption and insinuation...

reminder that MBBF gave Hannity the benefit of the doubt when putting up footage to perpetrate a lie but nothing here. hmmmmmm

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

reminder that MBBF gave Hannity the benefit of the doubt when putting up footage to perpetrate a lie but nothing here. hmmmmmm

And it was apparantly warranted as Hannity admitted that day that a member of his staff mistakenly cut in the wrong footage and he apologized for the mistake. That's why you give someone the benefit of the doubt. But it wouldn't be fun if there wasn't a conspiracy involved. It's far too much of a stretch to believe that a 20-some acne-faced assistant screwed up. That never happens.

[Flasch186]

So there isn't a left wing liberal media conspiracy you tout?

and all of the times theyve (Fox) throw a D up when it shouldve been an R?

y'know, I have a lot of respect for Fox, more than for you...At least their chief Editor admitted to their bias. I will continue to point out your spins. Your credibility is shot and as long as your ways dont change neither will mine. IMO your low was spinning in the Iran thread though. That and the bowling bus episode.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

It has a lot more to do with the well-being of American ideals, and showing that we still adhere to them even when the opponent fights dirty.

{Yawn}

Those "ideals", or at least the ones worth retaining, don't include doing incredibly stupid shit such as putting vermin like into a court system that's woefully inadequate to handle the job.

We do plenty of stupid shit, no sense adding one more item to the pile for zero benefit beyond some vague warm fuzzy for folks who are in denial about the state of the world around us.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

So there isn't a left wing liberal media conspiracy?

and all of the times theyve throw a D up when it shouldve been an R?

y'know, I have a lot of respect for Fox, more than for you...At least their chief Editor admitted to their bias.

What are you talking about?????? I've pointed out on this board their bias and said they're one of the few networks that has enough balls to come out and admit it, which can't be said of most networks. At least bother to know what you're talking about when you type something..

Just because they have some level of admitted bias doesn't mean that all screw-ups are intentional.

And on the same line of reasoning, I do have some level of respect for the Obama Administration for openly admitting their bias against Fox News. Even the administration's supporters appear unwilling to admit it exists despite the administration's own admissions.

[Flasch186]

So youre saying a Liberal Left wing conspiracy isnt admitted so the things they do are pointed and part of the conspiracy BUT Fox News has admitted their bias therefore any 'mistakes' that are made are simply...mistakes. That makes no frickin' sense except in MBBF bizarro world.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

So youre saying a Liberal Left wing conspiracy isnt admitted so the things they do are pointed and part of the conspiracy BUT Fox News has admitted their bias therefore any 'mistakes' that are made are simply...mistakes. That makes no frickin' sense except in MBBF bizarro world.

Your train of logic is baffling at this point. I've never said anything about a left wing media conspiracy. I think there's just elements of those groups that are left leaning. That's a secret to no one. Similarly, many elements of Fox News are right-leaning. Having that bias on either side doesn't mean they can't make mistakes that may appear bias but were actually stupid mistakes with no ill intent.

[Flasch186]

ROFLMAO

When painted in a corner, claim dumb.

[duckman]

Will you two fucking idiots (Flasch and MBBF) get out this thread, so the adults here can actually have an intelligent debate?

[Arles]

I don't see how any competent defense attorney could not get KSM an appeal regardless of what happens. The fact that we probably won't see an appeal shows that we don't trust our current system for KSM - and need to make this "America criminal Light" court with different rules.

IMO, this is probably the best course of action - but it is a slap in the face to those of you touting this as a victory for our justice system. Our system can't handle the KSM case properly and you just need to look at how the case is handled and the different rules/standards applied to see this.

This is akin to stating little people can hit just as many homeruns as normal sized adults. Then, after the normal sized people hit, you bring the fences in 150 feet. It's a joke and all it does is sully our system when people say it's no different than any other criminal trial. Atleast we should admit what it is - so as to allow a shred of dignity for the 99+% of "real" cases tried under our system with real laws and an attempt as legitimacy.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

{Yawn}

Those "ideals", or at least the ones worth retaining, don't include doing incredibly stupid shit such as putting vermin like into a court system that's woefully inadequate to handle the job.

We do plenty of stupid shit, no sense adding one more item to the pile for zero benefit beyond some vague warm fuzzy for folks who are in denial about the state of the world around us.

We don't get to pick and choose what ideals are retained. And, they do include putting vermin into a court system. As for being woefully inadequate to handle the job--is there any evidence of this inadequacy? Thinking back to the last fifteen years, our court system did a tremendous job of trying, convicting, and punishing the blind sheick behind the original WTC bombing, Timothy McVeigh, and the DC sniper.

I'm all for debating whether or not he should be tried here, and what rights he has, but the argument that the system can't handle is based on simple conjecture, without any hard evidence to back it up. It's become part and parcel of a greater dislike of government.

And, it's far more than "some vague warm fuzzy for folks who are in denial about the state of the world around us." It's about being able to see the forest through the trees and not getting caught up in some partisan narrative.

[albionmoonlight]

If someone considers our court system inadequate to handle the job of prosecuting crimes, then why is that person living here? I'm not asking that to be an ass. I'm asking it to make people think about what they are saying.

Lots of people have responded to this news by stating some variation of "I don't trust the system/the system is fixed/the system can't handle the job."

If you honestly and sincerely beleive that you are living in a country with a court system that corrupt and/or incompetent, then why are you living here? Why are you subjecting yourself, your spouse, and your children to the jurisdiction of those courts?

If I had the fundamental mistrust of the American courts that a lot of people seem to have, I would not live in this country. And it would not be a hard choice, actually.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by duckman

Will you two fucking idiots (Flasch and MBBF) get out this thread, so the adults here can actually have an intelligent debate?

I've been very well reasoned in my discussion. You can feel free to have a debate in this thread as well. I'm not hindering that endeavor in any way. I can't see how name calling is furthering any intelligent debate, but perhaps things are done differently in your end of the prairie.

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

To be clear, I have problems with the U.S. Courts. I also have problems with Congress and the Executive Branch for that matter. But, overall, I am happy with the balance struck by the three branches of government and the 50 states. On balance, it is a system that works, but has flaws. And I am proud to be part of it.

I just had no idea that so many people had such a low opinion of 1/3 of the government. (And the 1/3 of the government that, due to political isolation, you would think would have the most public trust behind it). Maybe I need to stay away from political blogs or something, but I've really been shocked at the lack of faith in the federal judiciary I've seen over the last few days.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

If someone considers our court system inadequate to handle the job of prosecuting crimes, then why is that person living here? I'm not asking that to be an ass. I'm asking it to make people think about what they are saying.

Because relocation isn't financially realistic at this point in my life. Nor even (for lack of a better phrase) socially realistic; i.e. my wife isn't going to leave her mother by that kind of distance.

Although the courts would be down the list of reasons I'd rather be living my daily life somewhere else, preferably a reasonably sized island that's of no strategic value to anyone & out of anything like hurricane lanes.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Far be it from me to speak for molson, but he's arguing something else. Our justice system requires a high level of evidence and proper conduct in order to achieve conviction. While the evidence is there, the proper conduct is not, and so you have to ask whether the evidence is tenable. This would lead to doubt as to whether a conviction is a certainty, although a conviction definitely IS a certainty. Therefore, the trial is not actually being done under our justice system. It's a fair point.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I've really been shocked at the lack of faith in the federal judiciary I've seen over the last few days.

Seriously? Damn. Considering the judges that are political appointees (from both sides) I'd think the mistrust of the federal judiciary would be kind of expected.

And I trust the federal courts considerably more than I do a lot of lower courts.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Far be it from me to speak for molson, but he's arguing something else. Our justice system requires a high level of evidence and proper conduct in order to achieve conviction. While the evidence is there, the proper conduct is not, and so you have to ask whether the evidence is tenable. This would lead to doubt as to whether a conviction is a certainty, although a conviction definitely IS a certainty. Therefore, the trial is not actually being done under our justice system. It's a fair point.

The only counter to that is that we've tortured them enough that there isn't any way to design a judicial system that is fair. Even military tribunals would have to be massaged to the point of ridiculousness and an international court would be horrified to learn the specifics of his treatment.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I've been very well reasoned in my discussion. You can feel free to have a debate in this thread as well. I'm not hindering that endeavor in any way. I can't see how name calling is furthering any intelligent debate, but perhaps things are done differently in your end of the prairie.

wow, the two children agree on something.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Far be it from me to speak for molson, but he's arguing something else. Our justice system requires a high level of evidence and proper conduct in order to achieve conviction. While the evidence is there, the proper conduct is not, and so you have to ask whether the evidence is tenable. This would lead to doubt as to whether a conviction is a certainty, although a conviction definitely IS a certainty. Therefore, the trial is not actually being done under our justice system. It's a fair point.

This is what I am getting at in my posts. If the case against KSM was for racketeering in New Jersey, it would be thrown out of court (or atleast subject to an appeal).

The KSM situation isn't a criminal court, it's a kangaroo court. My hope is that if we decide to use a criminal court for something, let's use a criminal court - not make a mockery of a system to ensure we get a conviction.

[CraigSca]

I know I'm changing the subject, but since it has to do with the health care bill, I thought I'd share this info.

Part of the money (an estimated 40%) for the healthcare program will come from taxing the rich - a single person would have to make more than $500K in order to "qualify" for this additional round of taxes. Well, according to MSNBC.com (who gets their information from the Tax Policy Center) this $500K in income will not be adjusted for inflation, just like the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). So, gradually more and more Americans will be affected by this, including the "middle class".

Isn't this something that Congress should have learned long ago? This AMT each year gets re-written, lobbied against and is a general headache for both congress and the taxpayer. Why repeat history here? If you want to tax the rich, remember that inflation rates aren't stagnant and make sure you put that in the bill.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

And it was apparantly warranted as Hannity admitted that day that a member of his staff mistakenly cut in the wrong footage and he apologized for the mistake. That's why you give someone the benefit of the doubt. But it wouldn't be fun if there wasn't a conspiracy involved. It's far too much of a stretch to believe that a 20-some acne-faced assistant screwed up. That never happens.

How do you make that mistake though? I mean come on. How often do we get highlights from the football game 3 weeks ago by accident? That wasn't a mistake.

[RainMaker]

My problem with trying them in our courts is that we've had them under a different set of rules for a long time now. There is no way evidence under waterboarding should be allowed in a criminal trial in our civilian court system. But that was technically legal under the guidelines of the capture. I just don't know how you go from having someone play under enemy combatant rules for years and then shift them into the rules of our civilian system.

This stuff should have been sorted out well before the war too. I think Obama is wrong in this decision (although I don't think his options were real good in this case), but this should have been thoroughly debated and voted on 7 years ago and been used over those years. It feels like we captured a bunch of these guys and then woke up one day and said "shit, now what do we do with them when we're done?".

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

This is what I am getting at in my posts. If the case against KSM was for racketeering in New Jersey, it would be thrown out of court (or atleast subject to an appeal).

The KSM situation isn't a criminal court, it's a kangaroo court. My hope is that if we decide to use a criminal court for something, let's use a criminal court - not make a mockery of a system to ensure we get a conviction.

But both options are kangaroo courts. While I agree he never gets a fair shake in civilian court here, I would think the perception would be that it's more fair than some military tribunal. I just think the argument that is' not a real fair trial is wrong when the alternative is just as bad.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But both options are kangaroo courts. While I agree he never gets a fair shake in civilian court here, I would think the perception would be that it's more fair than some military tribunal. I just think the argument that is' not a real fair trial is wrong when the alternative is just as bad.

I think the general public may be more willing to accept that the military tribunal system does not have the same high standard of civil rights for defendents over accepting the idea that our criminal justice system can and should be used in a way that risks its legitimacy.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I think the general public may be more willing to accept that the military tribunal system does not have the same high standard of civil rights for defendents over accepting the idea that our criminal justice system can and should be used in a way that risks its legitimacy.

But I don't think the decision is necessarily about us. It's also about giving a perception to the world that we're fair in our court systems. We've been critical of kangaroo courts in the Middle East for a long time, and a military tribunal makes us look like hypocrites.

I think it's a no-win situation to be honest. But I think part of the decision process was us being able to point to the rest of the world and say that this guy got the same treatment that our citizens get in court (although that won't necessarily be true).

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I think the general public may be more willing to accept that the military tribunal system does not have the same high standard of civil rights for defendents over accepting the idea that our criminal justice system can and should be used in a way that risks its legitimacy.

Risks its legitimacy? Please. This is the same system that regularly let white men off for killing blacks, generally assigns much harsher sentences to the poor than the wealthy and puts to death some percentage of innocent men. I think we'll survive a trial of KSM just fine.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Jon

We don't get to pick and choose what ideals are retained.

Sorry, especially so with you being a spelling namesake & all, but I gotta call b.s. on that statement.

Our so-called "ideals" have evolved (and devolved) throughout the history of the country. Or maybe more accurately (I wouldn't argue if you like this phrasing better) our interpretation of those has changed over the course of time.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Risks its legitimacy? Please. This is the same system that regularly let white men off for killing blacks, generally assigns much harsher sentences to the poor than the wealthy and puts to death some percentage of innocent men. I think we'll survive a trial of KSM just fine.

So your argument is that the criminal justice system is already so fucked up that this trial shouldn't impact the legitimacy of the system? I look forward to the administration using this line of defense.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

So your argument is that the criminal justice system is already so fucked up that this trial shouldn't impact the legitimacy of the system? I look forward to the administration using this line of defense.

I'd phrase it a little differently.

The bedwetting argument that the trial of KSM will undermine our criminal justice system is based more on political opportunism than concern for the system.

[Arles]

I would rephrase it as well. While our system has some warts, that doesn't mean we should openly mock it with the KSM trial. The civilian court system is not meant to handle an enemy combatant/foreign terrorist trial. It's like buying a BMW Z4 and then trying to tow your boat with it. It's not a good idea.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

I would rephrase it as well. While our system has some warts, that doesn't mean we should openly mock it with the KSM trial. The civilian court system is not meant to handle an enemy combatant/foreign terrorist trial. It's like buying a BMW Z4 and then trying to tow your boat with it. It's not a good idea.

We've put foreign terrorists on trial for decades and somehow still managed to go on. How can this possibly be worse than locking him up indefinitely, waterboarding him 183 times and refusing him access to an attorney? If putting him on trial makes a mockery of the system what's been happening that past several years?

Personally, I would have probably favored a military tribunal, but I get the arguments for a more open trial. I just don't think there's any fear of our justice system collapsing because KSM may not get a completely fair trial. If the right is now so worried about 100% fairness in all trials I assume we can agree to abolish the death penalty given the fact that we can't ensure guilt in every case.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I just don't think there's any fear of our justice system collapsing because KSM may not get a completely fair trial.

That's a little dramatic considering the reasonable arguments against this that have been presented.

I haven't argued that the justice system is going to collapse. I just think this idea is completely counterproductive to the claimed goal ("claimed", because the goals here are only political). We want to show the world how great our system is - so we'll fudge the rules of our system, and have a meaningless show trial that will not impact KSM's punishment one bit. What the hell sense does that make?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

That's a little dramatic considering the reasonable arguments against this that have been presented.

I haven't argued that the justice system is going to collapse. I just think this idea is completely counterproductive to the claimed goal ("claimed", because the goals here are only political). We want to show the world how great our system is - so we'll fudge the rules of our system, and have a meaningless show trial that will not impact KSM's punishment one bit. What the hell sense does that make?

I'd agree you haven't made that argument, but Cam did argue that the trial risks the legitimacy of the system. Like I said, I get the arguments against, I just don't think the possible negatives are as great as some others do.

AT this point I don't think there's any system that can be perfect. At the least, I'm glad we're finally working on a system to provide some sort of justice as opposed to holding them indefinitely and torturing them.

[molson]

I wonder if this is all just a way to get the atrocities committed by the Bush administration out there in a way that will draw less political heat.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

I wonder if this is all just a way to get the atrocities committed by the Bush administration

You mean like leaving a single one of the bastards alive?

That's the biggest "atrocity" of all.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You mean like leaving a single one of the bastards alive?

That's the biggest "atrocity" of all.

I agree with whoever said that the Bush administration had zero plan on what to do with these guys. At least Obama is moving towards SOMETHING.

[molson]

So KSM gets a civilian trial, but at least 5 others at Gitmo will get military tribunals (including the architect of the USS Cole bombing).

Holder Defends Trying Alleged 9/11 Plotters in Civilian Court - WSJ.com

So if the civilian trial is the right thing to do for whatever reason - why doesn't this administration think a civilian trial is apporpriate for all of them?

So they're showing off our system to the world or whatever, but hand-picking who actually takes part in that system, which completely undermines the system in the first place. Imagine if we had constitutional trial rights in this country, but the government decided who got them and when. That wouldn't be America. What a sham.

To make myself feel better I'll think about KSM's show trial as a civilian-themed military tribunal.