Five 9/11 defendants want platform for views

No matter whether they are given a military tribunal or a civilian trial they will have an opportunity to speak. It makes no difference which venue. < :-)

Just as all of us Conservatives said, this is the wrong thing to do. This will allow the bad guys to have a voice, a voice heard worldwide which will entice the weak and vunurable into following the evil Jihad against the west. The Dems and Obama himself were warned this would happen and it will be to the detriment of ours and our allies security. Everything Obama does is falling to pieces. He even appeases terrorists, which of course will embolden the ones still active. It defies all logic and belief!

Five 9/11 defendants want platform for view

Then they should have been standing on the top floor/platform of one of the towers were they good have had a good view of what they help engineer.

The world needs less of people like this.

Damn I can't spell.

were they could have had a good view.

Five 9/11 defendants want platform for views

And President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are foolish enough to grant their wish.

pathat, the US was up against time restraints with respect to trials and keeping these terrorist/criminals locked up. If we wanted to keep them locked up or even put to death we had to charge them with crimes and try them.

Basically holding military tribunals or civilian trials still gives the defendants the opportunity to speak at their trial/tribunal.

Knowing the above, what is your suggestion? You fear? They still go to trial. If you don't try them, then they become releasable within certain time restraints. But they will get to walk.

What is your plan to hold them for the rest of time and keeping them silent to the world? < :-)

I can think of a platform.

Its called the Gallows.

Good! The more people hear their views in a public forum the easier it is to completely defeat them. Same with holocaust deniers, and Sarah Palin let them speak as they can easily be defeated in any battle of ideas.

so were these the 5 guys that planted the thermite explosives in the buildings? Or are these the guys who planned the planes to be flown in to buildings that were designed to with stand an impact by a large aircraft? Hey what ever happened to the jewish terrorists who planned to blow up the George Washington bridge? Why werent they ever charged?

You can't even put then in the gallows without a trial or tribunal. < :-)

So build the gallows high and let them have their say with a rope around their necks!

America's foreign policy that has made so many of their kind rich? Just not them? The rich ones now recruit poor ones to bite the hand that fed them. Jihadis aren't the smartest people on this planet. Their rhetoric reminds me of some postersinjapan.

Is it not important to hear their reasons for committing such an extreme & murderous act?

It is the USA that made the mistakes that allowed this to happen, so if they want to learn from their mistakes, they should listen patiently and calmly.

In today's US, your voice no longer matters if it goes against the left. There still is no logical reason to give these guys a normal trial and no reason why their trial could not be performed at Gitmo. I am sure the Nazis and the Japanese would have loved to have had their views spoken publically, instead we read about and we can decide whether we agree or not. Or did we lose that right too?

"The five men facing trial in the Sept 11 attacks will plead not guilty"

No doubt.

It's not my understanding that a trial means the defendants actually get an opportunity make speeches about US foreign policy grievances. If the judge determines it to be irrelevant to the question of guilt, it won't be heard.

Don't confuse what the defendants WANT to do (they WANT to do a lot of things I'm sure) with what they'll be allowed to do.

Don't confuse what the defendants WANT to do (they WANT to do a lot of things I'm sure) with what they'll be allowed to do." ah, but how many defenders of this will want them to be allowed to do just that? How many islamic schools and organizations in the US want just that?

I want every nazi and Japanese to be retried if this goes through.

Even at the nurenberg trials there were charges, defense, the opportunity for the suspect to plead and their explanations, verdicts and sentencing. Some of the same objections were given on both sides as to why the trials should be held. The trials were still held. < :-)

http://www.worldwar-two.net/acontecimentos/85/

Maybe you don't want Obama or Holder to get the credit for putting these terrorists/criminals on trial, especially blocks away from the WTC. george bush should have done something. But instead he sat on his hands and now it's been left to the Obama administration to finish the job. You want to whine. Whine against the last administration. < :-)

Obama is going from Carter to LBJ.

I predict that when this spectacularly foolish, expensive and dangerous show trial concludes Obama will be forced by his party to decline any run for reelection.

I don`t see how this would be such a big deal. What are they going to do? Reveal military secrets? Request to appear on Oprah? I understand how this will be used by jihadists for probaganda purposes but so will anything that happens to these guys. In any case given that anyone will then have access to the procedings what they say will become public domain regardless.

adaydream wrote:

"pathat, the US was up against time restraints with respect to trials and keeping these terrorist/criminals locked up. If we wanted to keep them locked up or even put to death we had to charge them with crimes and try them.

Basically holding military tribunals or civilian trials still gives the defendants the opportunity to speak at their trial/tribunal.

Knowing the above, what is your suggestion? You fear? They still go to trial. If you don't try them, then they become releasable within certain time restraints. But they will get to walk.

What is your plan to hold them for the rest of time and keeping them silent to the world? < :-)"

It's very simple: There was no reason for these scumbags to get the rights of American citizens by trying them in federal court in NYC. They should have been tried in a military tribunal.

I think you know me well enough from years ago on the old JT that I do not "fear" what they will say as concerns the Bush administration, and most certainly not about our stupid war in Iraq.

But to give them a "platform" to spout off their twisted views to the world, is mind-numbingly ignorant of the Obama administration, in my opinion.

My true fear is that the people who want to carry out attacks on Americans on home soil will move from more complicated attacks to ones in which they will sacrifice themselves in simple outbursts with guns or backpack bombs in the near future, and NYC might be their venue of choice when the trial circus starts.

I hope I'm wrong.

Don't do this. Giving these clowns a forum from which to lecture us on their perverted views can only cause grief. For one, there are certain elements in the Middle East that would welcome the stimulus that any such diatribes can offer. These folks should be given due process in-camera, and treated accordingly afterward. The other option would be to hand them over to certain Middle East countries after any trial. Why? Because in the eagerness to score brownie points with Washington, Saudi Arabia and Egypt would more than willingly do things that would be considered cruel and unusual here in the west.

Maybe you don't want Obama or Holder to get the credit for putting these terrorists/criminals on trial, especially blocks away from the WTC. george bush should have done something. But instead he sat on his hands and now it's been left to the Obama administration to finish the job. You want to whine. Whine against the last administration." Don't you dare start with that crap that if we don't agree, its because we don't like Obama and as far as I am concerned, I'm willing to let GWB be a war criminal for not doing something to them faster. You are still not answering the question I posted nor that of millions of New Yorkers - why MUST it be there? Why can't it be held in Gitmo? If you think giving them a "fair" trial is going to send a message and make people change their minds, you need to be committed!

pathat, what rights do they get in civilian court that they don't get in military tribunals? Tell me what holding civilian court on them gives them that military tribunals don't. < :-)

I'm sure I'm unique in my view of this one, but I will look forward to hearing what they have to say. It's one thing to condemn the actions of these people. I think most people would agree that what they did was unacceptable regardless of the circumstances. There is no justification for it.

But I think we can also agree that certain environments tend to foster unacceptable behavior. For example, we all realize that slums in cities can lead to crime. Without excusing criminal behavior we can try to avoid the circumstances that lead to crime. All modern city planning has techniques for avoiding slum-like areas.

Without excusing their behavior, can we not listen to their claim that American foreign policy helped create an environment in which they felt their actions were justified? Are we so sure that there is nothing we can do to improve the environment to make these actions less probable (as wrong-headed as they are)? As abhorrent as we find the attitude of these people, are they not best placed to give us insight into what we can do better?

pathat, what rights do they get in civilian court that they don't get in military tribunals? Tell me what holding civilian court on them gives them that military tribunals don't. < :-)

A jury for starters......

A military tribunal, or commission, is different from a regular civilian criminal court. In a tribunal, military officers act as both judge and jury. After a hearing, guilt is determined by a vote of the commissioners. Unlike a criminal jury, the decision does not have to be unanimous.

This Administration should be ashamed of itself for even thinking of allowing these self-proclaimed terrorists any chance in hell to rub salt in the wounds of the families of the 9-11 victims. A civilian trial will do just that......Unbelievable.

sailwind, How would you keep them quiet? They have to be tried and they will get their time to speak. How would you keep their voices unheard. < :-)

sailwind, How would you keep them quiet? They have to be tried and they will get their time to speak. How would you keep their voices unheard. < :-)

Simple, A Military Tribunal acts as Judge and Jury, they can order them to shut up if they get out of hand, who are they going to appeal to the A.C.L.U?.....Good luck with that if they were tried like they should be under the Military Tribunal System who would tell the A.C.L.U to pound sand, instead of this farce of treating them like they were common car thieves or bad check writers deserving of a American citizens right to a civilian jury trial.

they had a platform, they had several platforms. I don't care why they did it, they did it.

Skipthesong

Exactly.

In this case, it doesn't matter why they did it, it just matters that they DID it.

Taking the not guilty plea shows that they are basing their actions on a different law system, which when revealed during the case will definitely be rife with religious and political overtones.

In the case of killing nearly 3000 civilians, their ends will never justify their means.

they can order them to shut up if they get out of hand

They still get their right to speak out. They still get to speak their reason for doing thing, whether we agree or not. They still have a forum to speak.

Even Saddam got the right to speak at his trial. He still was executed, but he had his right to speak out. Even when things got out of hand, they were put back into order and the trial continued.

I really don't see any other outcome besides a guilty verdict and sentencing, no matter the forum of trial. But they will get their platform one more time. Then I'd like to see them rot in solitary confinement for the rest of their natural lives. Not as some martyr who receives the death penalty, but locked away and humiliated as a confinee. < :-)

@sailwind, skipthesong, DICKmorris, victimcrat, bushlover, Sarge

1)Once again, it is another excuse to try and keep the Obama administration from accomplishing something else and getting credit for it. The more things President Obama accomplish with media attention the harder it will be for any contenders in 2012 to defeat him. Unless he makes a series mistake, which I don't think will happen. There is no reason this is bad for the country.

2)Making the trial public shows the rest of the world America is not afraid. That despite the horrific act, America will continue to keep going. It is also shows that we are a country that sticks to its principles, like everyone is entitled to a fair trial. That is what makes us better than the opposition. I think something should have been built a long time ago in the spot of the world trade center. The Bush Administration purposely allowed these things to drag on. It was a ploy to keep people focus on that so they could attack Iraq. If things what have been taken care of under his watch then people would have realized the reason for attacking Iraq was a lie.

3) Let them speak, the more people that hear this craziness then more people will become aware of it and avoid it. Just like the teabaggers, birthers and palin followers. The more they talked and got attention, the more foolish they looked. Keeping things hidden is what gets us into trouble in the first place. That is how the Bush Administration took away our constitutional rights, lied to us about Iraq and ruined the econonmy.

@skipthesong

I am sure the Nazis and the Japanese would have loved to have had their views spoken publically, instead we read about and we can decide >whether we agree or not. Or did we lose that right too?

Your logic doesn't make any sense. What rights have we lost other than the ones taken away from us by the last administration. How does not having the trial at Gitmo and being able to decide whether we agree or not the same thing?

I want every nazi and Japanese to be retried if this goes through.

Once again, you are not making sense. To have a war tribunal you have to be at War with someone. We were at war with these two countries, hence the terms war crimes and war tribunal. When we were attacked there was no declaration of war. The American terrorist Timothy McVey attacked America; he got a normal trial and was sentenced. So too will these men accused of acts of terrorism on American soil be trialed.

Being trialed in the place the act was committed is just following the law. Sometimes a criminal commits a crime in America and they leave the country. What do we do? When they are caught, we don't have them trialed in the other country. We try to have them transferred to America to be trialed. Same thing when people move from State to State. We are just following the law. It is what separates us from our opposition.

blm: tell me what rights I lost? I can tell you have not lost rights per say, but being afraid to speak up against this administration is the same as losing your rights inn my book. You are using old fashioned logic to boost your post. You are saying that since they don't represent a country, as incorporated, they are just simple criminals. I disagree. They represent a large part of a movement even if Bush and the current prez are too scared to call it what it is, it still is a war. For your argument in comparing Tim McVey, hey, we can't do anything about his rights because he was American - these guys are not so I can't see any reason giving them rights, rights that are not respected by many people and countries around the world mind you. Do understand it is these very rights that is on their top ten reasons to dislike us so much. And I am really disgusted that, as person who worked and lost people at the WTC, if I disagree you play some "hate Obama" card. Why must we accept this with open arms? The majority of New Yorkers are against this, is the will of that population not even considered?

To have a war tribunal you have to be at War with someone.

Newsflash...We are war with them a declared war a war that I have participated in. A war that NATO invoked it's mutual defense charter for the first time in its history. They were caught and captured due to our declared war agaisn't international terrorism they are stateless therefore they are called detainees they are a special breed and deserve special treatment. They are not entitled or they deserve the full rights as American citizens and all the protections that are afforded to them. They are international stateless terrorists and when you put them on the same plain as average American citizens or those citizens who lost their lives that day in Sept who will now and forever never be able to have those rights because these scum took that away from them you by default, whether you like reading this or not, you have made a mockery of their lives and all that they stood for by allowing them a platform to snub their noses and rejoice at the innocent American blood they have spilled. We are at war, a nasty brutal war and the enemy could care less about how you want his civil rights protected just to feel good about yourself or just to get a 'Bush Bash, 'Republican bad'in.

biglittleman,

Please understand I do respect your opinion and I was pretty harsh in response to your post, do not take it personal. This is a very passioniate subject both those that are for and those agaisnt. I'm agaisnt and on this subject I will pull no punches on my opinion that the Obama administration is totally wrong in its approach regarding these scum. Military Tribunals were the answer in my opinion and this article just confirms my believe in that even further now.

Very respectfully,

Sailwind

skipthesong,

No one here, certainly not me are saying you don't have the right to speak up against a certain administration. People make comments when the reason or logic behind the dislike doesn't make sense. Especially when you favor someone who are as guilty of or even more guilty of the same reasons you have stated. It makes people suspect there are other reasons at work which you are holding back. Which is usually the case for the most vocal people.

Now I wasn't saying this about you but about some people on here who are notorious for being hypocritical.

I'm not saying you are an Obama hater andyou don't support anything he does. I am saying your logic behind not letting this happen doesn't make sense. It seems to be based more on emotion than logic.

You are using old fashioned logic to boost your post. You are saying that since they don't represent a country, as incorporated, they are just simple criminals.

Old fashion logic? This is the law. The law that should be followed until the law is changed. Once again, that separates us from them. Just because other countries don't follow such rules doesn't mean we don't have to.

Do understand it is these very rights that is on their top ten reasons to dislike us so much.

So now you are saying because other people hate us for having such rights we should change them to be like their laws even if their laws are unjust.

If the other countries jump in the river. Should we jump in the river too?

I disagree.

Well you have that right to disagree. I think child molesters should be repeatedly raped as part of the terms of their sentencing. Unfortunately, for you and me the law also disagrees with us. Which means a majority of the people in the US believes these rules are just. When such time as the rules are changed because the majority feels differently then I follow the rules even if I don't agree with them.

And I am really disgusted that, as person who worked and lost people at the WTC, if I disagree you play some "hate Obama" card.The majority of New Yorkers are against this, is the will of that population not even considered?

The last information I read which was today which said the majority of New Yorkers didn't say they were against it being there. What they did find out was those who didn't want it was because they feared another attack. Not that it was old fashion thinking or it should be considered a war trial because it was a war. Their opinion was based on emotion (fear) and not logic. Similar to your thinking about this issue.

blm: I'm not sure what news you and others are reading but if you read the local NYC papers, like the Post and others from the five bourroughs you'd know that many are against this. I now very die hard libs who are shocked that we are going to bring those guys right there and they are going to have their say. While your post is long, I find that we can at least have a civil discussion. And you win on: "So now you are saying because other people hate us for having such rights we should change them to be like their laws even if their laws are unjust." Ok, you got me on that one. Still, this is a big mistake. You are going to have a large mob wanting revenge, and can you blame them? Again, I know of no one who is game for this and most of them have been Obama supporters up to this point. There is still the issue of the cost in bringing them to NY. Why can't they move the judges to gitmo and I'd like to know how they are going to pick the jury.

@skipthesong

I'm not sure what news you and others are reading but if you read the local NYC papers, like the Post and others from the five bourroughs you'd know that many are against this.

Many is not the majority.

You are going to have a large mob wanting revenge, and can you blame them? Again, I know of no one who is game for this and most of them have been Obama supporters up to this point.

Wanting revenge would be on some peoples minds even if they never again set foot on American soil. The feeling would still exist regardless. I am also pretty sure in the end they will still be an Obama supporter. So nothing has changed. He was elected by the people. He is the leader of the US. It is job to make the tough decisions. This is one of those decisions. The President and Holder have both made decisions within the letter of law with logical reasoning behind them. I pretty sure you know these are not the only people being trialed and some are considered war crimes and others are not. The reasons are not based on emotions as quite few posters are doing which why their logic isn't standing up.

@sailwind

We are war with them a declared war a war that I have participated in. A war that NATO invoked it's mutual defense charter for the first time in its history.

The war on terror was a term that President Bush created. There was no declaration of war. NATO invoking it's mutual defense charter simply states that criminal acts of terrorism on American soil is just like terrorism on all of the NATO members soil. Which means NATO members will help the US in anyway possible.

You should first learn what something means before you start spitting things out. That is why he is the leader and you are the foot soldier. Once again there was never a declaration of war.

"Once again there was never a declaration of war."

I thought the morning of 9/11 could easily be construed as just that.

Barack promised he would stand with the Muslims.Well, he is keeping his word. I cant describe how proud I feel to have voted for him.

Responses to several comments:

"Simple, A Military Tribunal acts as Judge and Jury"

Perhaps this would be fine as long as the same rules apply to the U.S., which, as everyone knows, they will not at all. Perhaps you mean something like a war crimes tribunal which is carried out by the U.N. or something? For the U.S. carry out it's own military tribunals would amount to a crime as well. Is this what we want? This is how most of the rest of the planet would see it, and, according to the U.S.'s own laws this would be criminal.

Also, the notion that the entire country should be found guilty and punished has already been one of the biggest mistakes in recent history. First of all, when a few criminals from a country commit a crime in another country, the proper response isn't to start bombing them into ruin. It's as if a few Arian Resistance goons went into another country, set off some bombs, and then the entire U.S. was held accountable. Is this what we want? This is basically what happened with 9/11. These guys were in no way, shape, or form acting out of some sort of government action, nor could they have been given there was no government. Petty criminals causing trouble. Catch them, dish out whatever punishment a tribunal of some sort, perhaps the U.N., Hague, etc...decides, try and make sure their reasons are VERY well publicized, so that everyone, including ourselves will know exactly what's up. Assuming we've been as saintly as everyone believes (in the U.S. anyway) then there should be no problem. Their statements should support us. And, just to make sure that all if fair and that the U.S. can start weening itself off of the Bush tragedy years, we should make sure that all rules which are imposed on others apply to ourselves as well, as most of the planet thinks. Unless we've decided to continue with our rogue status in the world, the notion that anything will get better is a fairy tale.

Thanks!

"I don't care why they did it, they did it."

You should most definitely care why they did it so that you can take steps to prevent it from happening again.

"Once again there was never a declaration of war."

"I thought the morning of 9/11 could easily be construed as just that."

Once again, if the White Arian Resistance declares war on country X, should that country start bombing the U.S.? It's odd how many in the U.S. would never even come close to expecting the same rules apply to them. Most rational people would say that of course we shouldn't be bombed for the crimes of a few criminals. On the other hand, if the same happens in the U.S., that we shouldn't assign ourselves that right seems almost absurd. How many folks here would have no problem with country X, after there having been a crime committed by some rogue criminals from the U.S., would accept that it was proper for the country attacked to start bombing the U.S.? I doubt very many. The hypocrisy is deafening.

The people who have finally made this arrangement obviously have analyzed the legal issues more than any of you here.

In virtually any trial, a person is given a chance to speak, however, it is not their right that the trial be publicized or televised. They only have a right to confront their witnesses, and make their case to the jury.

I wish that the Judge impose a gag order so no one will listen to anything these psycopaths have to say. He/she can do that easily.

Instead of death penalty, they shoud get solitary confinement for life, so they won't be seen as martyrs. If they get the death penalty, 9/11 victims and families should get to witness (and perhaps pull the switch haha).

The appeals will go all the way to the Supreme Court I'm sure. Military tribunals should have been the easy way out, but if they can pull his off without a hitch, it will serve as a lesson to other wannabe terrorists out there.

what makes everyone think the American system is the best? I never thought that, people wrongly imprisoned, people let out, get off, money buys an acquittal... now you say the US has the best system?

these guys now have a chance to walk, on technicalities, all so you can say hey went sent a message and people think better of us.

featherhead

Petty criminals causing trouble.

Nuff said on your reasoning sir.

@seijichuudo9sha

Barack promised he would stand with the Muslims.Well, he is keeping his word. I cant describe how proud I feel to have voted for him.

If right-wingers didn't lie about political topics they really wouldn't have anything to say about most issues. Which is probably why you haven't responded back.

@skipthesong

now you say the US has the best system?

Stay on topic, please! No one said we have the best system. What we did say is we have a better system than some other countries. Don't change subject when you begin to have less to contribute to the conversation. You have asked questions and we have addressed them. At least I have, now try to actually address our points by finding fault in our logic.

I don't believe you are true Right winger but you have some of their tendencies.

I don't believe you are true Right winger but you have some of their tendencies.

Clarify your version of what is a right winger please.

....and they´ll get their propaganda platform.

The spectacle of US defense lawyers pulling off their stunts on behalf of jihadist terrorist will be something to behold.

I am also looking forward to seeing that jury of his peers that this nice fellow is entitled to...

"jury of his peers"

Yeah, the first thing they will have to do is change the venue or pull the jury from the mentally insane....

I relish the thought of letting those vile lunatics "express their views." Then they'll be shown up as the bigoted religious fanatic murdering scum that they are. Unless the government is totally incompetent in it's prosecution....

Hmmmm, wait a minute while I ponder that. Maybe we're in trouble here.

no no blm: many here, who are cheering this decision, have been the same people to criticize the system as bad.... in the past. That was my point. My opinion still stands that this is a bad idea for the cost, the security - from the many New Yorkers who are already planning to head downtown Manhattan with bats and will cause trouble (and no, they are not right wingers, they are people who are pissed), I think it is a bad idea that they will garner many of the American supporters too so you know there's going to be clashes.... can you picture that? And you still think its worth not pulling the fed court to gitmo?

sailwind wrote:

"A jury for starters......

A military tribunal, or commission, is different from a regular civilian criminal court. In a tribunal, military officers act as both judge and jury. After a hearing, guilt is determined by a vote of the commissioners. Unlike a criminal jury, the decision does not have to be unanimous.

This Administration should be ashamed of itself for even thinking of allowing these self-proclaimed terrorists any chance in hell to rub salt in the wounds of the families of the 9-11 victims. A civilian trial will do just that......Unbelievable."

Thanks for taking the time to respond to adaydream's question.

I'm not quite sure why he had to ask it in the first place, though.

I think Thomas Paine had the answer in a book title.

President Obama and Attorney General Holder will rue the day they made this stupid decision.

Let's just hope the venue for this dog-and-pony show trial doesn't leave them with something else on their hands.

" I relish the thought of letting those vile lunatics "express their views." Then they'll be shown up as the bigoted religious fanatic murdering scum that they are. "

Their views are the same as the views of all the islamist clerics around the world, including right there in the US already. And the believers gobble them up.

The question is why the Obama administration wants to give a public, taxpayer-funded platform for those views in the middle of New York?

It looks like a slap in the face to the victims to me.

wow so a group of turban wearing nutters were capable of infiltrating and destroying areas of major importance in the USA all on their own. hmmmm really? Does nobody here think there may be more to it than these guys?

all on their own. hmmmm really? Does nobody here think there may be more to it than these guys?" Well, you can go with the conspiracy theory, but who would ever though that such a simple tactic would ever have been thought of? As they have already plead guilty, now we find that they are pleading not guilty so they can tell their side of the story. Can't they just write a book?

diggerdog:

" wow so a group of turban wearing nutters "

Mohammed Atta and the rest of the 9/11 martyrs did not wear any turbans. There were neat and clean-shaven looking.

And that they are "nutters" is your opinion. In their mind, religious zealots simply follow a path to god.

featherhead: "Petty criminals causing trouble."

sailwind: "Nuff said on your reasoning sir."

Care to expand, sailwind? But perhaps I should have been clearer. It wouldn't matter whether they were petty or not. They committed a crime. They do NOT belong to a state. They just happen to have, or at least bin Laden does, more money than most petty criminals. This is the primary difference and is irrelevant to the points being made. Care to try and challenge something in what I've asserted? Something more relevant? Say the hypocrisy?

@ featherhead>

They do NOT belong to a state.

You are completely ignorant of the radical brand of Islam that terrorists like KSM follow. How can they 'belong to a state' when it is the institution of the secular state that they seek to destroy???

Anyone who is even remotely serious about trying to prevent such actions in the future should absolutely be demanding that the criminals be heard. Can't ask for a better source of information than a thorough hearing about the reasons WHY someone carried out such actions. This isn't even an issue, is it? This is, and should be, the very first step. I can't imagine why anyone would desire NOT to know. Of course, it's possible that they simply won't like what they hear. But that is also important information. Why on earth would someone desire not to hear? This tells a lot about the mentality of a small, yet dangerous, percentage of folks, primarily on the right. Personally, I want to know exactly their reasons. I want to know their complaints. I want to know why they think what they do. I want to know if there's any legitimacy to their complaints. I want to know things, things which my own government usually won't tell us, and hold then accountable if they're true. In fact, as a citizen of the U.S. this is exactly my duty. Anyone doing anything less is neglecting their duty as a citizen and should probably just not comment on anything. So, when I find out things, like, the U.S. supported bin Laden for years, I want to know why. I can give a list a mile long of other basic and uncontroversila facts which it seems that many folks are unaware of, again, mainly on the right.

featherhead: "They do NOT belong to a state.

"You are completely ignorant of the radical brand of Islam that terrorists like KSM follow."

Uhh...No, I'm not. But if you wish to demonstrate how, please feel free.

"How can they 'belong to a state' when it is the institution of the secular state that they seek to destroy???"

Great! So you agree with my statement that they don't belong to a state. You should be careful before unwittingly calling yourself ignorant.

featherhead - exactly my thoughts.

Without knowing why these people attacked them, true Justice will never be served, only revenge.

Keep on this eye for and eye tact, and eventually we will all be blind.

Anthony39,

Great to hear another voice of reason! Perhaps we should provide some basic, easy to understand, examples:

Let's say Bob, an elementary school boy, walked into the classroom every day, walked past a boy named George, and punched him in the head. Now, personally, I'd find it extremely odd were the teacher, and all the other students, to simply start yelling for Bob to be punished, completely ignoring what possible reasons he may have had for punching George. Perhaps some folks went to schools where this happened. I sure never did. The absolute FIRST thing which the teacher would have done is to ask Bob why he had done this. And if George actually did everything he could so as not to let Bob answer the question, I'd also find it extremely odd. The ONLY reason I can think of as to why George wouldn't want to have Bob give his reason is that perhaps he may say something which may incriminate George, say, before class every day George kicked Bob on the bus, and were this known it may add a little color to why events took place. It's also quite odd that there are actually adults who have evidentally not passed even this stage of elementary development. Doesn't everyone know this by about furst grade? Geez!

@featherhead

"Personally, I want to know exactly their reasons. I want to know their complaints. I want to know why they think what they do. I want to know if there's any legitimacy to their complaints."

And I'll wager you're the type that thinks Charles Manson had a case against the US gov't.

If, if, if, if only the cops in LA had been more understanding...

@featherhead

"Personally, I want to know exactly their reasons. I want to know their complaints. I want to know why they think what they do. I want to know if there's any legitimacy to their complaints."

victimcrat "And I'll wager you're the type that thinks Charles Manson had a case against the US gov't."

You probably shouldn't wager. That being said, yes, if he presented compelling evidence that the government had done something, then I'd like to hear it. In the case of Manson, there was nothing to my knowledge. I mean, at least that's what Vincent Bugliosi said when he visited my university and talked about Manson. On the other hand, there are truck fulls of evidence that the U.S. has been involved with Bin Laden-type characters for years. This is nothing even remotely new, at least to those who have been keeping up on such things for 25-35 years. But I guess if one hasn't, they'd simply be unaware of such basics. And the U.S. media is sure not going to inform you. That's for sure. For a good example of how well informed folks are see the article at P.I.P.A entitled something like Misperceptions of the Iraqi War. They had a breakdown of all the major U.S. news outlets, tabulated the percentage of folks who had misperceptions about the basic facts of the war correlated with which news outlet they watched most. Needless to say, those who watched PBS had the least amount of misperceptions. (And even THIS is quite amusing given that they're not remotely "left") It went down the list until FOX (And I'll wager that you probably watch FOX, or would if you could), which had the most folks with misperceptions. But what made it especially great was that those folks who listed FOX as their primary source, and who watched more hours per day, had more misperceptions than those who has FOX as their primary source, but watched less. The lesson: The more FOX you watch, the less you know. But then who could possibly be unaware of this? Don't really need many studies to confirm the obvious.

If, if, if, if only the cops in LA had been more understanding...

The defendants may, on the judge's whim, express their views on the stand for 1 maybe 2 days. Same in a military tribunal. But that may be a small price to pay in exchange for a more transparent process that the world, including Muslims, can respect (or at least, less to criticize about).

@featherhead

"The lesson: The more FOX you watch, the less you know."

Sorry to disappoint, I don't watch Fox.

Why can't leftists (the non-Americans in particular) argue without bringing out the same old imaginary culprits, Fox or Rush Limbaugh?

featherhead:

" Anyone who is even remotely serious about trying to prevent such actions in the future should absolutely be demanding that the criminals be heard. "

Firstly, the jihadists are not "criminals", and secondly, if by now you have not heard the arguments of the jihadis against the Western world in general and the US in particular, you must have been living in a cave.

Bin Ladin has hardly been lazy in distributing his sermons to Al Jazeera, has he now. How do his teachings become different when they are broadcast from New York??

WilliB

Firstly, the jihadists are not "criminals", and secondly, if by now you have not heard the arguments of the jihadis against the Western world in general and the US in particular, you must have been living in a cave.

Bin Ladin has hardly been lazy in distributing his sermons to Al Jazeera, has he now. How do his teachings become different when they are broadcast from New York??

"Sorry to disappoint, I don't watch Fox." victimcrat Yeah, I thought you might say that. I wouldn'T admit to it either. This is good. It demonstrates that you have at least enough upstairs to know on some level, albeit quite minimal, that what they produce is anti-information for the most part. It would be rather dense to admit this. One half point for you. That being said, where do you get your "information"? "Why can't leftists (the non-Americans in particular)" What is a "leftist"? I'm an American. "...argue without bringing out the same old imaginary culprits, FOX or Rush Limbaugh" Uhhh....Perhaps because the right usually offers no other source of information. Perhaps the National Enquirer from time to time. And I hardly see in what way either are imaginary. There are thousands of poor uniformed souls swallowing the garbage Rush spews day in a day out who know no better. FOX is no different. That being said, being that ALL MSM are hugh corporate entities, existing for a profit, owned and controlled by big business from top to bottom, and having interlinking relations with all sorts of other huge industries which absolutely DO effect what comes out of them, I should pick on FOX alone. ALL are this way, and this includes PBS, though to a slightly lesser degree. Perhaps rather than trying to inform you of data and information you will likely never come across via the media, and especially the corporate-controlled media e.g. ALL MSM that is, I should just leave links, book titles, etc...then you can read, come back afterwards and make something resembling an arguement. So, let's just begin with the P.I.P.A study. Did you read it yet? ((Now, I've been spoon-feeding information to the right for years, and I'd say that about .00000000001% have actually read the information and responded in an intelligent way. Almost as hard as trying to get a right-winger to read ONE Chomsky book, virtually impossible. Let's see)) http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf , Fox or Rush Limbaugh?

OopS! Forgot Bill up there.

"Firstly, the jihadists are not "criminals""

Uhhh...They're sure not a soccer team. But perhaps you're correct. Perhaps their just your typical run of the mill religious fanatics who happen to carry out criminal acts from time to time. You know, sort of like the right-wing Christian Talibangelist criminals who carry out crimes from time to time. God knows the U.S. never does anything criminal. I mean, by definition that is. A well indoctrinated person wouldn't even understand those two terms in the same sentence; "U.S. and criminal? Huh? (scratches head) Uhhh....huh? Anyway, We're No.1!" Ahhhhh.....Utter perfection!

"and secondly, if by now you have not heard the arguments of the jihadis against the Western world in general and the US in particular, you must have been living in a cave."

Uhhh...I have said nothing which would indicate that I haven't heard the arguments. I've been listening to the arguments since WAY back when Chomsky was writing about them 25 years ago. Probably longer ago than your age. The entire "terrorist" paradigm was written and discussed in great detail years ago. LOOOONG before 9/11 happened. Years. As a matter of fact, folks like Chomsky were supporting anti-Saddam resistance groups LONG before the U.S. even remotely started to come around. Actually, he was even supporting them when it was illegal to do so because of U.S. law which prohibited it. Why? Because Saddam was our friend. He was our buddy. And what makes this especially ironic is that the right was calling folks like Chomsky "anti-American" then because he was supporting the folks fighting against Saddam. You see, if you depend on the right for ANYTHING in the way of media, you WILL end up making unwitting and embarrassing blunders like this all over the place without knowing. Of course when the predictable cognitive dissonance kicks in, as it always does, you can just come to places like this whining, demonstrating that you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about, and be happy in your ignorant bliss. Read any Chomsky lately?

"Bin Ladin has hardly been lazy in distributing his sermons to Al Jazeera, has he now."

How many of his speeches have you ever heard? I mean, from beginning to end? How many? On this site, or any site, western newspaper, book, or anything. Sort of odd, once again, that know one really knows what he says, and that the media doesn't let you. Ever wonder why? Can't find a translator, perhaps? I don't think so. They do NOT want you hearing for a very pecific reason. You are NOT to know certain information regarding your own government. This is nothing even close to being remotely new either. Personally, I think they should have been playing all of his speeches from WAY back so that we'd have a better idea of what was going on, who we were supposedly up against, their ideas (from THEM and NOT from U.S. traslations of them), and on and on....Just the simple basics which everyone should be demanding. And this is especially so if MY government is planning to send folks to die for some reason, using MY money to do so, etc....Once again, the ODD thing is that folks from the right fight to stay un/dis-informed. It's like a dictators dream citizen. Scary. And then, when someone as centrist as Michael Moore has even a small clip of bin Laden's cousin on Larry King telling how Osama had thanked the U.S. for their support, the right starts whining at Moore, as if he has done something wrong by passing on basic facts. Once again, it's a very good sign of indoctrination when you can have the citizens fighting to stay clueless. Makes the govenrments job much easier. Don't have to spend as much time propagandizing you. You're willing participants. (snore)

"How do his teachings become different when they are broadcast from New York??"

Uhhh...Well, first of all, people may actually hear them for the first time. Secondly, there are most definiely some folks who do NOT want the guys giving their reasons. Why? What's there to be afraid of? Once again, it's as basic as the elementary school child example I gave yesterday, which, of course, neither you or victim responded to. Waiting.

From featherhead

There are thousands of poor uniformed souls swallowing the garbage Rush spews day in a day out who know no better. FOX is no different. That being said, being that ALL MSM are hugh corporate entities, existing for a profit, owned and controlled by big business from top to bottom, and having interlinking relations with all sorts of other huge industries which absolutely DO effect what comes out of them,

and then

Read any Chomsky lately?

Chomsky has worked decades for MIT, no small player in the 'military-industrial complex' people like you constantly preach about. I've heard podcasts of his where, to his credit, he displayed admirable candor in basically admitting that he is a sell-out.

And besides, Chomsky tends to comment after the fact, after playing fast and loose with them.

Forget the MSM, 'centrists' like Michael Moore and intellectual frauds like Noam Chomsky.

What political philosophers do you read in the abstract? I get the distinct impression you're just itching to tell us, as the five 9-11 defendants will, that it's 'the whole system' which needs replacing.

So get to your point - what would you replace our republic with?

featherhead:

" Perhaps their just your typical run of the mill religious fanatics who happen to carry out criminal acts from time to time. "

I don´t know how often I have to point this out to you, but killing yourself while trying to take out the government, the military command, and a large part of downtown NY is not a "criminal act". It is an act of war; a holy war for the religious zealots.

"Criminals" do things for their own benefit; they do not commit mass murder in order to go to paradise.

victim said:

"Chomsky has worked decades for MIT, no small player in the 'military-industrial complex' people like you constantly preach about."

I haven't mentioned the military-industrial complex once. But there's really no need to as this, too, is a given. Chomsky talks about his work there quite often, and has joked about his using their facilities to contact his daughter who was living in Nicaragua at the time when Reagan was committing his war crimes there.

"I've heard podcasts of his where, to his credit, he displayed admirable candor in basically admitting that he is a sell-out."

I've read every book he's written, minus a few of the liguistic books, have probably 50 lecture recordings, etc....and have been keeping up with his work for 25 years. He's a "sell out" in what sense? That he makes money in the system where he lives? Your statement makes no sense. But before we go off into discussions about Chomsky, please, whatever you do, do NOT simply go seeking for anti-Chomsky sites. Done it already for years. Haven't found a one where anyone is remotely informed. Read for yourself if you wish to discuss his work. Then we can talk. I have mounds of references of you are actually willing to read a little. Actually, I have mounds of the anti-Chomsky sites as well if you wish to dis-inform yourself. I mean, you CAN do this if you wish, and then I'll just have to go down the list deconstructing everything that pours out. Been doing it for years. I'd be infinitely more inpressed were you to actually read somethings for yourself, and make your arguments. Besides, if you DO use others as sources I'll probably be able to tell within about a sentence where you visited.

"And besides, Chomsky tends to comment after the fact, after playing fast and loose with them."

Here we go already. This is not true and you will NOT find a single example of this anywhere, except, at one of the sites I'm well aware of. When YOU read his work yourself, and YOU find the statements, tell me which page and paragraph you're referring to, and all the other things educated people do, then we may have something to discuss. But given the statement you just made, which of his books have you read. I mean, you MUST have read them to know this, yes?

"Forget the MSM, 'centrists' like Michael Moore and intellectual frauds like Noam Chomsky."

Don't know what you're talking about. I'm talking about people whose works I've read, who I've heard speak repeatedly, whose detractors I've watched fumble around not knowing what they're talking about, and know something about the subject. You see, I don't mind you thinking either Moore or Chomsky to be frauds, but you're simply saying so means squat. May as well call them cheese and cornbread. Means nothing. Nothing to back up your statements. I'd almost bet a car that you've read nothing by either. If you have, feel free to tell me. Otherwise, you should probably just go back to kindergarten and call kids names, and run, of course.

"What political philosophers do you read in the abstract?"

I read them in the book myself. Right now I'm reading Moseley's A Philosophy of War, Rawls, Walzer, Nozick, several ex-C.I.A agents, say, Ralph McGehee, John Stockwell, Raymond Garthoff, and others. Oh, and I've already read Clausewitz, so you don't need to ask. And you?

"I get the distinct impression you're just itching to tell us"

You asked!

"as the five 9-11 defendants will, that it's 'the whole system' which needs replacing."

Which system?

"So get to your point - what would you replace our republic with?"

Don't know what you're talking about. Never said a word about replacing anything. Always room for improvements though. Most democratically-minded folks take this for a given. Of course this is one of the major faults of the right. They understand virtually nothing about democracy ot the way it works. Much more in line with totalitarian socities most of the time. Only most of history demonstrates this. But why would we be discussing history. Surely this has no relevance. Did you read the P.I.P.A. article yet? It's quite basic and easy. We'll work up to Robert McChesney and Robert Parry later.

WilliB

featherhead: " Perhaps their just your typical run of the mill religious fanatics who happen to carry out criminal acts from time to time. "

"I don´t know how often I have to point this out to you, but killing yourself while trying to take out the government, the military command, and a large part of downtown NY is not a "criminal act"."

You don't have to keep pointing anything out. If you've said something wrong once, repeating it any number of times isn't going to suddenly chage its truth value. That being said, it was a criminal act. An act of war is usually where one state's government declares war on another. The 9/11 goons represented no one but themselves. I know that you REALLY want to consider it a war so as to give you the excuse of doing anything you want, regardless of whether or not it's illegal, but that's just too bad. Once again, if the White Arian Resistance went to, say, Russia, and flew a few plans into a few buildings, and Russia responded by saying that because the culprits were from the U.S., and therefore the U.S. has declared war on Russia, I'm not sure you'd still be supporting your own policy or criteria for what war consists of. However, this example isn't quite correct in that the White Arian Resistance would have come from an actually country, one with a functioning government and society, various institutions, and the like.

"It is an act of war; a holy war for the religious zealots."

They can call it whatever they want. The White Arian Resistance would call theirs a holy war as well. Some homegrown terrorists, white, have declared war on the U.S. government as well, and have done so for a long time. Perhaps another country should invade the U.S. to take out these terrorists since the government isn't doing a very good job. But then again they're not all that far from people in high places anyway. I have a novel idea. Why doesn't the U.S. just stay the hell out of other countries, especially countries who don't want them there, and see if it helps reduce the hatred towards itself which may eventually lead to actions such as 9/11? Wow! That's deep. Let's see....Now, if WE don't invade THEIR countries, then THEY would have little or no reason to hate US, and the THEY would probably not do anything to US. And if they did, we could defend ourselves, as we should, of course. I mean, this IS the ONLY reason for their to be a military anyway. That's supposed to be its only job i.e., to protect the country. Invading other countries doesn't quite fit the defintion of defense. There were even overt calls for terrorism by many on the right. They called it "preventive war". Remember? If we "think" country X was "considering" doing something to us, rather than waiting, we should just go ahead and bomb them. Now, this really IS deviant behavior at its worst. Of course any other country could do the same to the U.S., but I guess since we would never think of doing any such thing, as one can easily tell by spending 30 seconds studying history, there would really be no reason for them to want to.

""Criminals" do things for their own benefit; they do not commit mass murder in order to go to paradise."

So, you're the "expert" on the criminal mind? That being said, you should be careful before saying things which will lead to yet another extrication of your foot from your mouth. Ever consider the possibility that committing mass murder in order to go to paradise WAS for their own benefit? I mean, all those vigins they're supposed to get and all.....

Anyway, speaking of terrorists, have you seen the youtube video of Billy Connolly talking about suicide bombers? It's quite funny. Give it a watch and tell me what you think.

From featherhead

"The White Arian Resistance would call theirs a holy war as well. "

This is just too flaky. White Americans born between March 21 and April 20 (most years...) have formed a homegrown terrorist movement?

featherhead:

" That being said, it was a criminal act. An act of war is usually where one state's government declares war on another. The 9/11 goons represented no one but themselves "

What you mean by "usual"? Jihad is holy war, and in their mind the jihadists are at war. And again, attacking the center of a nation in order to bring it down goes well beyond the scope of a "crime" for civil court.

victimcrat

From featherhead "The White Arian Resistance would call theirs a holy war as well. "

"This is just too flaky. White Americans born between March 21 and April 20 (most years...) have formed a homegrown terrorist movement?"

Uhhh...Huh? Is this, like, some inside joke or something? I don't understand.

WilliB featherhead: " That being said, it was a criminal act. An act of war is usually where one state's government declares war on another. The 9/11 goons represented no one but themselves " "What you mean by "usual"?" I already explained. Most states declare a war on another country. When WWII was taking place, the U.S. didn't get involved until Germany declared war on the U.S. Didn't have any desire to either. And for some folks, say, Bush's grandfather, it spoiled some good business which was taling place. However, being the lawless creature he was, and it must run in the family quite deeply, he kept trading with the Nazis even AFTER the U.S. had created the Trading with Enemies Act which made it illegal to do so. But, hey, when you're making money, little things like Hitler and the Nazis, Saddam, Suharto, Marcos, etc.......can be overlooked, and the higher moral ground of supporting murdering dictators for a profit accepted. You should really know things things. These are some of the basics of your country. I would have thought that you would have opposed supporting folks like Hitler, bin Laden, Suharto, etc.....I guess it was only the "anti-American left" who protested against these criminals before, during, and after most all of their crimes had taken place. We should have been patriotic and supported them with you. "Jihad is holy war, and in their mind the jihadists are at war." I don't doubt for a moment that in their minds they think they're at war, just as I don't doubt that the White Aryan Resistance do, nor any of the other anti-democratic folks, primarily from the right, who are always whining about their government "controlling" everything. And whether they are at war, or are simply criminals, (not that there's much difference in most cases) the reasons for actions taken should still be examined, and everything done to prevent them from happening again. "And again, attacking the center of a nation in order to bring it down goes well beyond the scope of a "crime" for civil court." Uhh....Will you apply this same standard to the U.S. as well? Are you REALLY SURE you wish to go down this path? That being said, hey, I'm all for them going to an international court instead. I mean, if as you say, they think they are at war, and we wish to consider whatever they have as some sort of army, then I'd be most happy to send them to an international tribunal. The problem is, is that if the U.S. wishes to consider them enemy combatants with an army, then they are required to send them to international tribunals, unless, of course, we wish to demonstrate our own lawlessness, again. On the other hand, if they're simply criminals, it poses the problem that we will, once again, be in the hypocritical position where when U.S. civilians commit crimes, the demand that the country send them back to the U.S. for punishment (military crimes that is), and say WE will deal with them. If we follow our own rules, then, we should send them back to their own country to be punished, or whatever. Which do you prefer?

featherhead:

" Uhh...So? There's a schizophrenic guy living down the street who declared are on Mars. Does that make it so? "

If Mars were populated, and the guy has a significant following who actually goes and kills Marsians on behalf of their war, then of course the Marsians should treat this as a war on them and not a "crime".

Be carefull with made-up comparisons, they can show the opposite of what you intended.

featherhead:

" And whether they are at war, or are simply criminals, (not that there's much difference in most cases) "

You can repeat this ad nauseam, but no, they are not "simply criminals". There is no personal gain on their side, they are fighting (and sacrificing their lives) to win in a holy war.

For the record, the German saboteurs who were landed by U-boat in NY with the task to cause as much damage as possible were not tried as "simple criminals" either. They got a military tribunal. And the mass-murdering jihadis who took out a large part of Manhattan get their fancy civilian lawers, Miranda rights and all that?

Bizarre.

And for some folks, say, Bush's grandfather, it spoiled some good business which was taling place. However, being the lawless creature he was, and it must run in the family quite deeply, he kept trading with the Nazis even AFTER the U.S. had created the Trading with Enemies Act which made it illegal to do so.

For someone who claims to be so much more discerning than the average MSM reader featherhead sure looks credulous here.

Can you provide us with provenance for you source on that one??

You know, reading about this spectral 'White Aryan Resistance' you speak of was kind of humorous, the first time .

Having to read about it again, on a thread about 9-11 mass murderers, just makes you look like a crank.

Oh, and for the record - - old Prescott Bush was one of the earliest supporters of The United Negro College Fund.

How does that square with your imaginary allies fighting the 'resistance'?

WilliB

featherhead:

" And whether they are at war, or are simply criminals, (not that there's much difference in most cases) "

"You can repeat this ad nauseam, but no, they are not "simply criminals"."

Uhh...Yes, they are. They belong to no state. They represent no government. Few people in the country where they come from support them. They're nothing BUT criminals, who happen to have quite a bit of money, or they did, and happen to despise the U.S. for what they consider to being an occupying force in their country, and this was LONG before 9/11. The U.S. has military bases in Saudi Arabia and they don't want them there. Sort of like if the Saudis had bases in the U.S. and some folks from the U.S. didn't think they should be there. But I'm SURE this would be no problem at all for anyone in the U.S. Right? I mean, YOU wouldn'T care if the Saudis, Japanese, Koreans, Iraqis, etc....had bases in the U.S. Right? Sort of getting that feeling again that occurs when one's hypocrisy starts becoming apparent? The guys have been saying for YEARS that if the U.S. would simply leave THEIR country, they would do nothing. They may be involved in Israel somehow, but that's not going to end any time soon, especially given Israel's ongoing aggression and crimiality. But I forgot. Crimes are only things OTHER folks do to us. We NEVER do anything to them. I mean, by definition that is.

"There is no personal gain on their side"

Oh, so you think they're just fighting because they like to fight? No reason? Must be those Arab genes, or that Islamic desire for terror, huh? Perhaps the gain for them is, say, having their lands unoccupied by an external power? But I guess if someone moved into your house, you'd just let them stay, offer them a coke, and allow them to do whatever they wished, huh? I mean, what would you gain by asking them to leave? More space?

"they are fighting (and sacrificing their lives) to win in a holy war."

Yeah, and? What does that have to do with their criminality? Whether the flew planes into buildings because their particular take on religion dictates it, or a purple elephant told them to do it, or they were just bored one day and thought a good day to die is irrelevant to the criminality of the action. May be of some use in knowing their reasons so as to try and prevent it from happening again in the future though. A good start would be not to support them in the first place. I'm surprised you don't know this (not really). The CIA itself has a term for it. It's called "blowback". They're quite well aware of this as a possibility and factor it into their assessments. "Is it worth risking blowback from group X so as to have access to cheap oil, or not?" Answer: "Yes."

"For the record, the German saboteurs who were landed by U-boat in NY with the task to cause as much damage as possible were not tried as "simple criminals" either."

Reagan wasn't tried as a war criminal at all even though the World Court declared the U.S. terror against Nicaragua to be illegal. The U.S. simply said that they didn't recognize the court. So much for international law. Of course OTHERS have to follow the laws. But the U.S. doesn't have to. It's as if bin Laden and his supporters, assuming they had an actual country or state, committed 9/11, were found guilty of the crimes by the highest international legal body in the world, and simply said they didn't recognize it. You would be okay with this?

"They got a military tribunal."

You mean the Germans? Yeah? And? Give these guys a military tribunal somwhere then. Makes little difference to me. The main thing is that we get to hear in first person their reasons. THIS is the most important thing, and this is the thing which some are trying to surpress as much as possible. Wonder why?

"And the mass-murdering jihadis who took out a large part of Manhattan get their fancy civilian lawers, Miranda rights and all that?"

What? You don't trust the U.S. legal system? I thought you were a patriot of sorts? Oh, yeah, I forgot. You're on the right.

"Bizarre."

The entire thing is not really all that bizzare at all. We supported group X for years, training them, funding them, etc....After the Soviets left, we stayed, and they wanted us out, but we didn't go. The questions people should be talking about MUCH more, but aren't, for the predictable reasons, is why on earth do we need to be anywhere near that part of the world in the first place? Do they have a right to be in the U.S.? If the vast majority of the population of the U.S. wanted them to leave, and there were a few criminals in power who wished for them to stay, would it be okay with you?

victimcrat "And for some folks, say, Bush's grandfather, it spoiled some good business which was taling place. However, being the lawless creature he was, and it must run in the family quite deeply, he kept trading with the Nazis even AFTER the U.S. had created the Trading with Enemies Act which made it illegal to do so."featherhead "For someone who claims to be so much more discerning than the average MSM reader featherhead sure looks credulous here." Uhhh...This was nothing controversial at all. This was simply reporting a basic, easily verifiable fact, for anyone caring to look. But the problem is, is that of you DO decide to look, and then you find the facts, for once, you won't be able to any longer keep denying them and sticking to your nonsense. It's better to stay disinformed and just keep screaming, huh? "Can you provide us with provenance for you source on that one??" Of course. Probably won't do any good though because I doubt you'll read anything. And then when you do, rather than checking to see how factual it is or isn't, you'll simply start trying to attack the source. That being said, I'm a few (dozen) steps ahead of allowing this possibility, so save your breath. On the other hand, if I just spoonfeed you the information it will be doing the work you should be doing yourself. I think YOU should try and do a little research yourself. It's not like you can't Google, is it? Okay, I'll do a one minute search for you.... THERE! 10 seconds to be exact. The first one listed on the page. 4 million more. I believe I even saw a FOX one, though I didn't read it. My hunch is that it was probably an apologetic take given their support for many criminals on the right. Perhaps they got one right. I'll look after this. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar "You know, reading about this spectral 'White Aryan Resistance' you speak of was kind of humorous, the first time." In what sense? Because they're blockheads? "Having to read about it again, on a thread about 9-11 mass murderers, just makes you look like a crank." Yeah, but accurate.

No kidding.

featherhead:

" Yeah, and? What does that have to do with their criminality? Whether the flew planes into buildings because their particular take on religion dictates it, or a purple elephant told them to do it, or they were just bored one day and thought a good day to die is irrelevant to the criminality of the action. "

Attacking the centers of government and finance of an entire country and committing mass murder in the process is an act of war, not a simple crime.

In the event, treating terrorism as simple crime was the Clinton approach, and maybe you rememer how badly that worked in e.g. the trial of the first WTC bombers in 1993.

By re-criminalizing terrorism, Obama wants to return to the pre 9/11 policy, and that show his tragic lack of understanding.

featherhead

The main thing is that we get to hear in first person their reasons. THIS is the most important thing, and this is the thing which some are trying to surpress as much as possible. Wonder why?

"And the mass-murdering jihadis who took out a large part of Manhattan get their fancy civilian lawers, Miranda rights and all that?"

What? You don't trust the U.S. legal system? I thought you were a patriot of sorts? Oh, yeah, I forgot. You're on the right.

"Bizarre."

The entire thing is not really all that bizzare at all. We supported group X for years, training them, funding them, etc....After the Soviets left, we stayed, and they wanted us out, but we didn't go. The questions people should be talking about MUCH more, but aren't, for the predictable reasons, is why on earth do we need to be anywhere near that part of the world in the first place? Do they have a right to be in the U.S.? If the vast majority of the population of the U.S. wanted them to leave, and there were a few criminals in power who wished for them to stay, would it be okay with you?

Here is a little intellectual clarity for you as a terrorist apologist who wants to hear their reasons.

Terrorists are different from revolutionaries and freedom fighters because terrorists target the innocent. Terrorists select women, children, airline passengers, office workers, worshipers and others uninvolved in combat and, generally speaking, incapable of defending themselves.

There are many definitions of terrorism, some of which are extremely convoluted, but there is a single question, the answer to which can separate terrorists from guerrilla fighters:

Would the act, if undertaken by a uniformed soldier in time of war, constitute a war crime?

Some cases are hard to judge, but nine times out of 10, answering this question clears away intellectual fog. It makes you realize that terrorism is a war crime committed by someone not a soldier.

This intellectual clarity is important, important not just to those of us who have lost family members or friends. Intellectual clarity is important to civilization itself.

When we fail to recognize the distinction between warfare and terrorism, we strip soldierly dignity from those who protect us from barbarism and award it to murderers.

This injustice doubly punishes terrorism's victims.

First, the terrorist turns the victim into an instrument of his armed propaganda. He transforms a human being into a bloody wall poster. Then, the terrorist or his intellectual apologist converts the victim into a legitimate target for military action, telling us there is no difference between an airliner and a military base, that a religious procession is no different from a column of soldiers.

He forces us to suffer the intellectual insult of being told that Carlos the Jackal is the legitimate heir of Simon Bolivar, that President Lincoln and Presidente Gonzalo were politically and morally equivalent.

http://discardedlies.com/entry/?2890_exposing-terrorist-lies-disarming-terrorisms-moral-power

Read the whole thing and take your blinders off.

sailwind

featherhead "The main thing is that we get to hear in first person their reasons. THIS is the most important thing, and this is the thing which some are trying to surpress as much as possible. Wonder why?"FH

Yeah! I agree!

"And the mass-murdering jihadis who took out a large part of Manhattan get their fancy civilian lawers, Miranda rights and all that?" ((I didn't say this. Read more carefully))

"What? You don't trust the U.S. legal system? I thought you were a patriot of sorts? Oh, yeah, I forgot. You're on the right." FH

"Bizarre."((The other guy))

"The entire thing is not really all that bizzare at all. We supported group X for years, training them, funding them, etc....After the Soviets left, we stayed, and they wanted us out, but we didn't go. The questions people should be talking about MUCH more, but aren't, for the predictable reasons, is why on earth do we need to be anywhere near that part of the world in the first place? Do they have a right to be in the U.S.? If the vast majority of the population of the U.S. wanted them to leave, and there were a few criminals in power who wished for them to stay, would it be okay with you?"FH

"Here is a little intellectual clarity for you as a terrorist apologist who wants to hear their reasons."

Well, you've already demonstrated you have no game by making an idiotic charge that I'm a "terrorist apologist", and I haven't even hinted at anything which wold indicate such. Nor are any of the sources I refer to even remotely "terrorist apologists". Not a word. Oh, I don't doubt you "think" you see such. That's pretty much a given. But then again you probably think Michael Moore is a "communist". Were I a terrorist apologist I'd be talking more about George Bush and making excuses for his war crimes. You should check before projecting your own pathologies onto me. Perhaps you can pay me to do therapy with you. Say, $1,000 per minute?

"Terrorists are different from revolutionaries and freedom fighters because terrorists target the innocent."

Who said they didn't? That being said, when people start dropping bombs on civilian populations such as the U.S. has done in Iraq, Afghanistan, and dozens of other countries, well, all of THOSE civilian deaths were just collateral damage. So, really, it's not our fault. Those folks shouldn't have been there. You know, in THEIR country. How about when a country fights against the freedom fighters, as the U.S. has repeatedly done? What happens when the U.S. supports the terrorists?

"Terrorists select women, children, airline passengers, office workers, worshipers and others uninvolved in combat and, generally speaking, incapable of defending themselves."

Yeah? And? Why are you telling me this? I'm well aware of what terrorists do. I'm well aware of what MY country does as well. Why are you avoiding ALL comments and criticisms of the U.S.? Even the basics, such as the U.S. installing Saddam in the first place. You know, back when he was an assassin? If you wish to see REAL numbers of casualties carried out by terrorist actions, go youtube John Stockwell Third World Wars. CIA agent 25 years. Involved in it all. But what would HE know? I'm sure you are MUCH more informed than he. By the way, have you read a single word of any of the links I've left for you guys yet, or is reading still a sin on the right?

"There are many definitions of terrorism, some of which are extremely convoluted, but there is a single question, the answer to which can separate terrorists from guerrilla fighters:"

Yes. I know what they are.

"Would the act, if undertaken by a uniformed soldier in time of war, constitute a war crime?"

Depends on the act. There is a LONG list of acts which constitutes war crimes. Bush's actions qualified for several. And, as I've already mentioned, Reagan's were many as well. Open and brazen. Well, at least to those not thoroughly indoctrinated.

"Some cases are hard to judge, but nine times out of 10, answering this question clears away intellectual fog. It makes you realize that terrorism is a war crime committed by someone not a soldier."

Not in any way, shape, or form. If I go into any country and just start shooting everyone and say it's because my religion told me to not a single person, not a single rational person that is, would say that it was a war crime. They would say that I was an insane religious fanatic who hated country X or whatever. The notion of war crime wouldn't even come into the conversation. Sorry.

"This intellectual clarity is important"

It's neither clear, nor important.

"important not just to those of us who have lost family members or friends. Intellectual clarity is important to civilization itself."

I agree 100%. So, why are you fighting against it? I've been quite clear with my comments, and as of yet haven't had a single one demonstrated to be incorrect, or for the most part, not even challenged. Not a single reference I've used has been commented on. Nothing. Just more whining from pseudo-patriots who need to read a little more about the subject. Oh, that reminds me of another thing. Where are all of the sources I've asked you folks from? Not a peep?

"When we fail to recognize the distinction between warfare and terrorism, we strip soldierly dignity from those who protect us from barbarism and award it to murderers."

Why are you telling me this? I haven't said a word to demonstrate that I thought otherwise. Not a single word.

"This injustice doubly punishes terrorism's victims."

Which victims? You mean ours or theirs? Oh, you weren't aware that that anyone else had victims other than the U.S. That's not even close to being surprising.

"First, the terrorist turns the victim into an instrument of his armed propaganda. He transforms a human being into a bloody wall poster. Then, the terrorist or his intellectual apologist converts the victim into a legitimate target for military action, telling us there is no difference between an airliner and a military base, that a religious procession is no different from a column of soldiers."

And? Nothing new. Why are you telling me this? Haven't said a word which would indicate that I'm unaware of this. But if you think you can find ONE, feel free to produce it.

"He forces us to suffer the intellectual insult of being told that Carlos the Jackal is the legitimate heir of Simon Bolivar"

They are not remotely the same, nor have I said a word which would indicate that I thought they were. Why all the focus on THEM though. I haven't see you say a word about U.S. actions. And speaking of Bolivar, the U.S. has a long history of supporting the exact people who wish to kill folks like him.

"that President Lincoln and Presidente Gonzalo were politically and morally equivalent."

They weren't? Or Reagan and Castro? Reagan having killed MANY time more than Castro even hinted at. Hundreds of times more in fact.

Why send this link? Nothing there that I'm unaware of.

"Read the whole thing and take your blinders off."

You haven't written a single word to indicate I've had blinders on. On the other hand, you and the other pseudos here have done most everything you can NOT to respond to anything. Shall I go back and compile a list?

By the way, sailwind, can you find me any studies by the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) which deals with the U.S.'s relationship to terrorist organizations, support for terrorists, and things like this. I mean, if they're a serious organiztion, and they're really committed to fighting terrorism, the FIRST place to start is at home. I mean, after all, they were founded after the Oklahoma city bombing. A domestic criminal act. We can call it terrorism if you like. It does fit some of the descriptions. More importantly, we should make sure we're not doing anything which helps to cause the very thing we're supposed to be fighting. But then again, compared to much of the world, even quite close to the U.S., we've been fortunate to have suffered MUCH less. Probably a good idea to keep it that way, eh? Also probably a good idea NOT to unwittingly help to cause it in the future.

Sailwind,

Here's what a two minute research project looks like:

1)Saidwind offers an article written by a guy who works at the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terroism in order to preach to me about terrorism

2)On this institutions very own page the following information is offered: "Until 31 March 2008 MIPT housed the Terrorism Knowledge Base which was developed in conjunction with the Rand Corporation"

3)The RAND corporation (a conservative "think tank")came out with the following article which I'm not sure will satisfy sailwind

The Rand Corporation, a conservative think-tank originally started by the U.S. Air Force, has produced a new report entitled, "How Terrorist Groups End - Lessons for Countering al Qaida." This study is important, for it reaches conclusions which may be surprising to the Bush Administration and to both presidential candidates. To wit, the study concludes that the "war on terrorism" has been a failure, and that the efforts against terrorism should not be characterized as a "war" at all. Rather, Rand suggests that the U.S. efforts at battling terrorism be considered, "counterterrorism" instead.

And, why is this so? Because, Rand concludes, after studying 648 terrorist groups between 1968 and 2006, that military operations against such groups are among the least effective means of success, achieving the desired effect in only 7% of the cases. As Rand explains, "[a]gainst most terrorist groups . . . military force is usually too blunt an instrument." Moreover, "[t]he use of substantial U.S. military power against terror groups also runs a significant risk of turning the local population against the government by killing civilians." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/rand-corp----war-on-terro_b_116107.html

Thanks!

It is a safe prediction that you will see some of these jihadists walk away as free men from this trial... the lawyers have already started laying the groundwork.

Read here http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125928395078865773.html

If the likes of KSM walk, Obama goes down. But our affirmative action president, whose ridiculous media-driven hagiography also includes the oft-repeated half-truth that he was a professor of constitutional law, has declared, pre-trial, that KSM will hang.

Brilliant. Should they lose, KSM's lawyers will have grounds for declaring a mistrial, a gift given them before the whole farcical show trial even began.

What kind of elected official, let alone a president, would imperil the lives of ordinary Americans with something like this?

Given the cold-blooded fanaticism Al Qaeda murderers are known for who in their right mind would let a spouse, relative, friend, neighbor or coworker sit on a jury in a case like this?

The federal gov't only last month convicted the DC sniper. How long will this obscene charade drag on, and at what cost in tax dollars or even innocent lives?

What traitorous, ignorant morons these Democrats are. FDR, Truman, JFK, Scoop Jackson, Humphrey - among the past generations of Democrats - would be shocked to see what has become of their party.

I say keep them in Gitmo. Better yet, send them to a frozen military camp in Northern Alaska, above the circle. That's even better than they deserve....

WilliB

"It is a safe prediction that you will see some of these jihadists walk away as free men from this trial... the lawyers have already started laying the groundwork."

They won't walk away unless there's no evidence to keep them. And if they confess to having participated in 9/11 then they won't be going anywhere. Now, my question is should we expect the same to happen to U.S. military personnel, or anyone else for that matter, presidents included, when they participate in, or order, war crimes? If not, why not? It's a very simple question. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was illegal and was a war crime. Period. For that matter, in th elegal definition of terrorism, even the threat of invasion qualifies as terrorism. So, basically, every time the U.S., or anyone IN positions of power who may be able to cause such events, are already guilty of terrorism. The hypocrisy is SO glaringly loud. Almost every day we hear pontification as to whether or not we might, should, etc....invade Iran, and this just passes off as normal discussion over dinner, on TV, etc...Now, something tells me that if the Iranian government, etc...were pontificating every noght on thre tube whether or not they should or should not invade the U.S., we'd probably bomb them the next day insisting that they were on their way to bomb us, that we reserve the right to proactively protect ourselves, and on and on....That such basics, and I mean THIS is about as basic as you can get, aren't even discussed in the media at all is rather pathetic. It's a damning statement about the media in general, and about the public which doesn't confront the media as well.

victimcrat "If the likes of KSM walk, Obama goes down." Why would Obama go down? Why would they walk? We have enough evidence to prove that they are guilty, don't we? If not, then whoever ordered them to be held for so long should go to prison instead. But I'm confident that we would NEVER hold anyone without evidence. "But our affirmative action president" Racist statement. "whose ridiculous media-driven hagiography also includes the oft-repeated half-truth that he was a professor of constitutional law, has declared, pre-trial, that KSM will hang." Explain. I don't understand. What's the point of having a trial if it's already been determined that they will hang. That, too, is criminal according to the law. Once again, it's quite simple. We either have evidence that they are guilty and punish them if are found to be guilty. or we don't have any evidence and do what any civil country would obviously do. Why do I hear fear in your voices? "Brilliant. Should they lose, KSM's lawyers will have grounds for declaring a mistrial, a gift given them before the whole farcical show trial even began." Again, I hear fear. Why? "What kind of elected official, let alone a president, would imperil the lives of ordinary Americans with something like this?" By following the law? Yeah, I guess after Bush's criminality almost became normalized among some of the citizenry, law and order just sort of don't matter. "Given the cold-blooded fanaticism Al Qaeda murderers are known for who in their right mind would let a spouse, relative, friend, neighbor or coworker sit on a jury in a case like this?" The Nazis had trails and they were FAAAAAAR worse, killed FAAAAAR more, etc...But then again we supported both, so we should probably just sort of not get too over righteous. It makes it too obvious that we're trying to make up for these past blunders and idiotic decisions. "The federal gov't only last month convicted the DC sniper. How long will this obscene charade drag on, and at what cost in tax dollars or even innocent lives?" If they confess to being guilty, or we have the evidence we surely have, then it shouldn't be too long. I mean, you wouldn't want anyone innocent getting the death penalty would you? I mean, if we just kill an innocent person then I don't really see how it would be any different that the terrorists killing innocent people. But I'm sure we have evidence. "What traitorous, ignorant morons these Democrats are. FDR, Truman, JFK, Scoop Jackson, Humphrey - among the past generations of Democrats - would be shocked to see what has become of their party." REALLY? The democrats have moved so far to the right that it's shameful. Obama is FAR too conservative, and Clinton was a Republican. Of course not a REAL Republican of the sort which would have despised the charlatans who have the audacity to call themselves Republican now, but a newer Republican notheless. Ron Paul was about the closest to an actual Republican there has been for decades, though he was too conservative as well, though infinitely better than the war criminals like Bush, Cheney, etc...

Blue_Tiger

"I say keep them in Gitmo. Better yet, send them to a frozen military camp in Northern Alaska, above the circle. That's even better than they deserve...."

Why not have a trial? What are all of you folks afraid of? ANd then after they have had their day in court, then Bush and crew can get in line. However, NOT in a U.S. court. A REAL court which would be willing to look at the case without any interference.

They won't walk away unless there's no evidence to keep them. And if they confess to having participated in 9/11 then they won't be going anywhere. Now, my question is should we expect the same to happen to U.S. military personnel, or anyone else for that matter, presidents included, when they participate in, or order, war crimes?

I think your saying they didn't a war crime...could you clarify please?

sailwind:

"I think your saying they didn't a war crime...could you clarify please?"

Who do you think I think didn't commit a war crime? As usual, there have been crimes committed on all sides. If we wish to call what al Qaeda did a war crime, fine, we can call it that, though it doesn't really fit the usual definition given that they are not nor have been a government or state. Usually war crimes are committed by states. They do not qualify as a state in any way, shape, or form. They're just a band of criminals carrying out crimes. The U.S. on the other hand, does have a state and government. It DOES order actions via the state to be carried out. There ARE laws which states are subject to, and where if broken WILL be considered war crimes. So, we need to ask ourselves, are we no better than they are? Because they commit crime does it necessarily follow that we muct as well? And what is the responsibility of those who have supported in the building of these forces in the first place? I have not hinted a word that they have not committed a crime. I've simply said that if they have, then we should prove it, and they should be punished accordingly. Never hinted at anything else. And anyone else having committed war crimes should be held accountable as well. Is this so radical?

From featherhead

The Nazis had trails

I take it you mean we gave them trials. Yes, but the US gov't did not impanel a jury at Nuremberg with ordinary American citizens. Surely even Noam Chomsky has told you high-ranking Nazis were tried in military tribunals, in accord with legal custom stretching back to George Washington's first term.

Can you provide a legal precedent for what this administration is doing in this case?

Eric Holder couldn't. Our affirmative action president can't either. And yes, his grades - the ones the public has been allowed access to - indicate Obama got into Columbia and Harvard as a charity case. Why should it bother you? - - you yourself say he is not radical enough, which to a leftist is the same as saying he is not as intelligent and perceptive as moi.

Just search [ Obama “undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action” ] and you'll see a personal admission from our president, one the media is still uninterested in.

Here is the Harvard Law link - - http://www.hlrecord.org/2.4475/record-retrospective-obama-on-affirmative-action-1.577511

and they

[the Nazis]

were FAAAAAAR worse, killed FAAAAAR more, etc...But then again we supported both, so we should probably just sort of not get too over righteous."

You speak for yourself on that one.

I really enjoy your stuff though. You demonstrate a feature about the left that can never be underestimated, and that must be thoroughly understood by anyone dealing with leftists - most of them loathe their own country and western civilization in general.

victimcrat

"The Nazis had trails"featherhead

Where did I say this? That being said, if I did say this, it was surely correct. No doubt the Nazis left trails. They were a huge government with all the usual incriminating paperwork. U.S. is one of the best countries about keeping paper so that people can find out what THEIR government, remember, the people who work for THEM, are doing with THEIR money. It's one of the good things about the U.S. Unfortunately, it just so happens that we don't find out until years later (not by accident either) about what was happening. Too late to prosecute any criminal actions. But periodically, with the hard work of good Americans, the truth eventually seeps out. And sometimes, when we're very lucky, folks like Robert MacNamara come out and admit what illegalities they were participating in. ((See 'Fog of War' DVD where he admits that the bombing of Japan was a war crime. It's good to see when such obvious, basic, facts happen to come out)) Anyway, YES, they had some sort of paper trail.

"I take it you mean we gave them trials."

Why would you take this? They had paper trails because they kept papers. Of course WE may be mentioned from time to time in the paper, of course. So?

"Yes, but the US gov't did not impanel a jury at Nuremberg with ordinary American citizens."

Nor should they have. And?

"Surely even Noam Chomsky has told you high-ranking Nazis were tried in military tribunals, in accord with legal custom stretching back to George Washington's first term."

Chomsky doesn't tell me anything. If you wish to know what he says I recommend breaking ranks with 99.9999999% of the right and actually read his writings, instead of just frothing out nonsense with you mistakenly think he thinks. Besides, who said anything about thinking that a military tribunal wasn't an option. I haven't even hinted at anything such as this. I said this would be fine as long as the U.S. plays no role in running the trial. Sort of the same reasons we don't allow the accused rape victims, nor their family members, to be in the jury. Okay?

"Can you provide a legal precedent for what this administration is doing in this case?"

No. But if we are considering them to be criminals, we should do what folks usually do when criminals from another country commits a crime in their country. If they are war criminals, even though this isn't really logically possible given that they don't qualify under the criteria already discussed e.g., they have no state, country, military, etc...,we should send them to a military tribunal somewhere else. No problem from where I stand. I'm not against prosecuting criminals, regardless of which country they're from.

"Eric Holder couldn't. Our affirmative action president can't either."

Racist statement again.

"And yes, his grades - the ones the public has been allowed access to - indicate Obama got into Columbia and Harvard as a charity case."

You guys are really desparate to get Obama on something, aren't you? It's embarrassing and makes you appear even more desparate than we know you already are.

"Why should it bother you?"

It doesn't bother me at all if you make racist comments. You are the one who should be embarrassed. But then again you're perhaps not even aware that what you're doing is making racist statements. This is common among many racists. I much prefer the honest racists who just say what they really think about black folks, Arabs, etc...instead of beating around the bush.

"you yourself say he is not radical enough"

"Radical enough"? He's not remotely radical at all. The word radical wouldn't even enter the radar regarding Obama. Just a middle of the road American. Not even leftist.

"which to a leftist is the same as saying he is not as intelligent and perceptive as moi."

I don't know what you're saying. You mean hat I think radical are more intelligent than leftists. I don't think these terms mean awfully much. They're often too watery. I consider Chomsky to be conservative in many ways. I also consider many on the right to be radical in many ways.

"Just search [ Obama “undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action” ] and you'll see a personal admission from our president, one the media is still uninterested in."

What on earth would be wrong, or even an issue, had he benefitted from such a moral legal action? That he may have benefitted isn't the issue. The issue is your saying that he had as if this means something. Almost as bad as the "reverse racism" nonsense.

"and they [the Nazis] were FAAAAAAR worse, killed FAAAAAR more, etc...But then again we supported both, so we should probably just sort of not get too over righteous."featherhead

"You speak for yourself on that one."

I usually speak for myself.

"I really enjoy your stuff though."

Thanks!

"You demonstrate a feature about the left that can never be underestimated"

Literacy? That we read? That we know history more than the right? That we're not racist? What? (Perhaps below? I can't wait)

"and that must be thoroughly understood by anyone dealing with leftists -"

You say this as if you know what "leftists" are, and yet you have yet to get as much as a single assertion correct. First, you should know who you're talking about, and you cannot do this unless you read them, talk to them, study them, etc...The left DOES do this with the right, and this is a given part of what it means to be from "the left" much of the time. The right don't even bother. This is why I VERY rarely have anyone from the right to even read ANYTHING which is supposedly from the left. They 'think' they already know, just as you evidentally believe you already know Chomsky, but, in reality, you don't. Not at all. So, please try and be a little humble, pick up a few books, read them, come back and make arguments based on something more than what Rush says, or the National Enquirer.

"most of them loathe their own country and western civilization in general."

My point has EXACTLY been proven by this ignorant statement. I have not said a single word which even hints at loathing anything about western civilization. On the other hand, I have repeatedly demonstrated the exact opposite. You right wing pseudo-patriots do not by ANY far stretch of the imagination have a monopoly on patriotism. As a matter of fact, much of what Ihave said has proved exactly this. Bush's criminality itself demonstrates a disdain for the U.S. But I'll give you a chance to redeem your empty charge with a nice long list of where you have "seen" this in any of my statements. I'm waiting.

victimcrat:Can you provide a legal precedent for what this administration is doing in this case?

featherhead; No.

End of debate.

I don't need to. You are the one whining. There is no debate.

Bush's criminality itself demonstrates a disdain for the U.S.

You want to put Bush on trial and so do these 5 terrorists.

End of discussion as far as I'm concerned about you wanting justice for the 9/11 victims of these inhumane jihadi's.

I don't see that you've made any arguments at all. Let's be very clear. What do you think should be done?

I don't see that you've made any arguments at all. Let's be very clear. What do you think should be done?

Military Tribunals just like they are doing to perps that plotted the U.S.S Cole bombing. After all one of the targets was the PENTAGON that fateful day.

Besides, since when does the right give a squat about legal precedents? You supported Bush, and he was breaking laws right and left.

And to think you had the gall to mention Nuremberg:

"A Nuremberg chief prosecutor says there is a case for trying Bush for the 'supreme crime against humanity, an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation.'" http://www.alternet.org/world/38604/

sailwind at 05:31 PM JST - 29th November

"I don't see that you've made any arguments at all. Let's be very clear. What do you think should be done?"featherhead

"Military Tribunals just like they are doing to perps that plotted the U.S.S Cole bombing. After all one of the targets was the PENTAGON that fateful day."sail

And? So where have I disagreed?

featherhead,

You stated very early in this thread your thoughts on a U.S Military tribunal.

"Simple, A Military Tribunal acts as Judge and Jury"

Perhaps this would be fine as long as the same rules apply to the U.S., which, as everyone knows, they will not at all. Perhaps you mean something like a war crimes tribunal which is carried out by the U.N. or something? For the U.S. carry out it's own military tribunals would amount to a crime as well.

You have disagreed with it calling it a crime as well. Well the Obama administration is going to conduct a U.S Military tribunal on the U.S.S Cole plotters. When you start taking the Obama administration to task for this 'crime as well' in your opinion then you might actually have some credibility, until then I'll return you to your Bush bashing.

sailwind

"featherhead, You stated very early in this thread your thoughts on a U.S Military tribunal."

"Simple, A Military Tribunal acts as Judge and Jury"

"Perhaps this would be fine as long as the same rules apply to the U.S., which, as everyone knows, they will not at all."

And?

"Perhaps you mean something like a war crimes tribunal which is carried out by the U.N. or something?"

Yes? And?

"For the U.S. carry out it's own military tribunals would amount to a crime as well."

Yes. Exactly.

"You have disagreed with it calling it a crime as well."

I have not once NOT called what has taken place a crime. If so, please copy and paste. I have done nothing but to call it a crime. Perhaps your medication is too strong?

"Well the Obama administration is going to conduct a U.S Military tribunal on the U.S.S Cole plotters."

The I would disagree with this even more considering it didn't even happen in U.S. waters. It's quite simple. We either abide by international law and have them tried by a court which is NOT U.S. controlled, or we demonstrate our own lawlessness and criminality.

"When you start taking the Obama administration to task for this 'crime as well' in your opinion then you might actually have some credibility, until then I'll return you to your Bush bashing."

Well, as I recall, the crime happened during the Bush posses watch. Their response was already criminal. (Not to mention supporting such criminals for years before) That being said, taking Obama to task for what? I still don't see what you are so worried about? If they're going to court, any kind of court, what are you worried about? Surely you aren't worried about not having enough evidence to convict them, are you? I mean, if there is no evidence, you don't wish to condemn them anyway, do you? And if they're planning to confess, as they say they're going to do, then what's your worry?

Well, as I recall, the crime happened during the Bush posses watch.

You recall wrong, U.S.S Cole was hit under Clinton's watch.

I still don't see what you are so worried about?

Google John Hinckley and see how his slam dunk civilian trial turned out.

I wasn't referring to the Cole happening under Bush's watch. I was referring to 9/11 happening under Bush's watch. And it doesn't matter who was at the helm when the Cole happened to the point I was making regarding how it should be handled.

Regarding the trial, I still don't see what your problem is. What can a military trial do which a civilian trial can't? Prosecute in advance? Are you worried on some level that there will be no evidence to hold them and they will be set free? If there is no evidence, are you saying they should just hang anyway? Are you worried on some remote level that this will set a bad precedent? Perhaps you should try to think a little more creatively. Perhaps they WANT them to go free so as to be able to track them back to where their superiors reside. Happens all the time with DEA, FBI, etc...Just a normal everyday strategy. However, I really don't think you have to worry that much. Or perhaps your worry stems from the fact that many of the folks being held at GITMO were already shown to be innocent. But for the sake of arguement, let's say that the only people involved in 9/11 were those flying the planes, and they all died. What do you want to do? Just go kill someone from their country so as to feel better, regardless of whether or not they had anything at all to do with it? What would you want to do?

Nothing good will come from this, andthe Obama Administration's procedures of this will set and are settign a dangrerous precedence. These five terrorists will get all the protections guaranteed a US Citizen (something they are not) charged in a civil and civilian crime inside the USA (these men were apprehended on the battlefield).

Sailwind: Hinckley was also read his "Miranda Rights". Under the weight of US Law -- in whcih these men will be tried -- failure to read to a suspect his or her rights results in a thrown-out case. It'll be a lsam-dunk alright....but a slam dunk forthe defense and these men will walk...

Thanks Prez O...

President Obama is about to bring to trial those folks that attacked us. Rather than having them rot in Gitmo he is bringing them to where their crime took place.

With all the evidence against them they will surely hang. But for some reason the right wingers here would rather let them go then have them stand trial.

Those who died on that date deserve justice even if you folks do not want it for them.

seijichuudo9sha at 06:35 PM JST - 23rd November Barack promised he would stand with the Muslims.Well, he is keeping his word. I cant describe how proud I feel to have voted for him.

I find it sad that folks take someones quotes out of context all to try and make a point. You really should fact check things before planting your foot in your mouth.

Now, let me try and help you from seeming to not know much. The quote that you are referring is an incorrect quote.

Misleading e-mail: From Audacity of Hope: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

Now the correct statement by President Obama;

Actual quote from "The Audacity of Hope" [pg. 261]: Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.

Hm, our President said nothing like what you referred to.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html