Your little diatribe in the beginning only makes me glad...
Libby Send a noteboard - 22/11/2009 05:32:57 AM
Holy $@#*, who put these idiots in charge of a war? Oh yeah, that's right. We did. This is complete insanity, a purely political decision, with the only factor taken into consideration being "apologizing" for the Bush administration and "setting things right", with no thought of the consequences. This decision (trying enemy combatants while AT WAR in U.S. criminal courts) is so far beyond stupid that I'm having trouble coming up with the words. This, on top of the endless agonizing about the most politically helpful move on Afghanistan and the threat of "discussions about the seriousness of possible consequences" against Iran, is causing me to severely doubt the ability of this administration to tie their own shoes, let alone execute a war.
That people who think as you do are no longer in charge of our foreign and domestic policy. Thank god for that. Oh by the way, don't lecture other people on foreign policy, considering how much damage your ilk has done to our country and the world in the past 8 years, your really not in a position to be doing that.
***
Now on the subject at hand let me explain to you something about the Jihadist narrative, because If you want to defeat the enemy you're going to have to understand why they think the way they do.
Their narrative is largely about justice or what radical imams and their followers perceive as injustice. In the their version of history, the West has a long history of exploiting the Muslim world. We occupy Muslim lands to steal their resources. We install corrupt lackeys as their rulers. For all our high and mighty talk about fairness and justice, we reserve these luxuries for ourselves. In this warped worldview, we deserve any atrocities that jihadist “warriors” might commit.
Many of the officials and commentators who are so upset about the decision to give Khalid Shaikh Mohammed a civilian trial were also quick to call the Fort Hood killings an act of terrorism. But if the suspect, Maj. Nidal Hasan, is indeed a terrorist — not just a deranged man who snapped — then his awful rampage helps demonstrate the point I’m making. Hasan reportedly considered the U.S. military deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan a war against Islam, at one point arguing that Muslim soldiers should be excused from combat as conscientious objectors. In other words, he apparently bought at least part of the jihadist line.
In this context, putting Mohammed and the others on trial in a civilian proceeding on U.S. soil is not just a duty but an opportunity. It’s a way to show that we do not have one system of justice for ourselves and another for Muslims, that we give defendants their day in court, that we insist they be vigorously defended by competent counsel — that we really do practice what we preach.
Even if a military tribunal would be just as fair — and a military court might be even more offended by the fact that Mohammed was subjected to waterboarding — a trial by men and women in uniform would be seen as an extension of the “war on Islam.” Holder’s choice is not without risk. The biggest question I have is whether an impartial jury could be impaneled in New York. And while I think the chance of an acquittal is incredibly remote, if it happened, Mohammed would be kept in indefinite detention anyway.
But there’s one more huge benefit to a civilian trial: It would show the preachers of hatred and their followers that we’re not afraid of them or their poisonous ideas. It would show that they haven’t changed us or our ideals — and that they never will.
I say bring it on.
This message last edited by Libby on 22/11/2009 at 05:34:02 AM
No need to interrogate Osama bin Laden?
20/11/2009 12:48:27 AM
- 1000 Views
oO uhm, what?
20/11/2009 12:54:13 AM
- 482 Views
If they're tried INSIDE the US, then yes, they are entitled to due process.
20/11/2009 01:44:08 AM
- 397 Views
Yeah, a lot of people were fuzzy on that till this started.
20/11/2009 09:30:39 AM
- 511 Views
on the other hand, we're more than willing to take them out back with a confession.
20/11/2009 06:34:12 PM
- 507 Views
New York is now asking for $75 MILLION for the KSM trial
20/11/2009 01:43:26 AM
- 439 Views
If this trial were being held in any other country
20/11/2009 01:56:07 AM
- 468 Views
It's a terrible precedent no matter how you look at it.
20/11/2009 02:13:46 AM
- 495 Views
It IS a terrible precdent, hence you and others are citing it 65 years after WWII ended.
20/11/2009 09:23:45 AM
- 380 Views
Spare me the bullshit.
20/11/2009 01:57:16 PM
- 376 Views
I will if you will.
20/11/2009 02:55:30 PM
- 466 Views
No, you won't. You never will.
20/11/2009 06:14:30 PM
- 363 Views
You're putting your cart before your horse is the problem.
23/11/2009 05:40:46 AM
- 466 Views
You don't think this is a military struggle? Wow.
20/11/2009 02:52:26 PM
- 418 Views
Allow me to point out...
20/11/2009 03:02:33 PM
- 399 Views
That's the thing, they aren't a terrorist group
20/11/2009 04:54:31 PM
- 441 Views
It would help if you would offer any argument in favour of your stance.
20/11/2009 08:43:08 PM
- 386 Views
I only use the word army cause I can't think of a better one
21/11/2009 04:32:01 AM
- 402 Views
Military struggles involve militaries.
20/11/2009 03:23:14 PM
- 554 Views
Once again, bullshit.
20/11/2009 06:09:31 PM
- 524 Views
This is wrong
20/11/2009 07:41:35 PM
- 425 Views
We're a long way from the shore of Tripoli.
23/11/2009 05:59:19 AM
- 471 Views
Your little diatribe in the beginning only makes me glad...
22/11/2009 05:32:57 AM
- 544 Views
I understand your "jihadist narrative"
22/11/2009 06:36:41 PM
- 529 Views
No you don't
22/11/2009 11:16:18 PM
- 459 Views
Oh, so you know better than Army attorneys about Miranda rights?
22/11/2009 11:52:00 PM
- 498 Views
I can explain it to you right now if you want?
23/11/2009 08:21:48 AM
- 396 Views
Credible legal and moral justifications for not trying terrorists in civilian court:
23/11/2009 02:56:19 PM
- 473 Views
Re: Credible legal and moral justifications for not trying terrorists in civilian court:
24/11/2009 04:55:12 AM
- 602 Views
I'm glad that you will never be in a position where a decision you make can affect my life.
23/11/2009 12:27:35 AM
- 370 Views
Actually people of my thinking are already making decisions that affect your life.
23/11/2009 08:29:24 AM
- 498 Views
Please explain to me how military tribunals compromise my principles?
24/11/2009 02:54:18 AM
- 365 Views
And your little hyperbolic rant would make more sense if it were grounded in reality.
22/11/2009 11:47:17 PM
- 396 Views
Looks like we'll get a Not Guilty plea, and a defense focusing on condeming US foreign policy
23/11/2009 12:36:47 AM
- 620 Views
They'll publicly accuse us of tyranny and brutality in front of a jury and without our censorship.
23/11/2009 08:27:13 AM
- 523 Views
My main objection is the awful precedent set by trying prisoners of war here in America.
24/11/2009 02:57:13 AM
- 445 Views
"My main objection is the awful precedent set by trying prisoners of war here in America. "
24/11/2009 06:57:34 AM
- 442 Views
We've had Mohammed in custody for over 6 years...
23/11/2009 07:56:49 AM
- 468 Views
I've already responded to your absurd statements, but let me reiterate a few here
23/11/2009 02:59:09 PM
- 364 Views
And I've responded to yours
24/11/2009 04:57:58 AM
- 440 Views
It's not, at least for me, that we feel the civilian courts are inadequate
24/11/2009 05:28:51 AM
- 425 Views
Good analysis of the situation.
23/11/2009 08:17:01 AM
- 532 Views
It isn't about sending a message. It's about horrible war fighting strategy.
24/11/2009 02:59:31 AM
- 489 Views
No. It's about not using a horribly ineffective strategy just to send a message to terrorists.
24/11/2009 09:29:06 AM
- 409 Views
enemy combatants and terrorists
23/11/2009 08:03:25 PM
- 503 Views
They're not different because from the Third World, but because terrorists.
24/11/2009 08:09:13 AM
- 619 Views