Obama: Yeah, It's a Show Trial
What did you expect, folks? Leftists love this stuff:
Bull. Crap. The Administration is only holding these civil trials in New York because his Justice Department assures him that these show trials are merely a formality. Obama has every intention of using the body of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as a podium from which he will no doubt trumpet his toughness in the war on terror, even as he finds a way to tuck his tail between his legs and scamper home from fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban without finishing the job. Barack Obama doesn't care about justice. He cares about appearances. He'll have his show trials and the execution of these five, even as he leaves another 75 to rot in prison with no intention of bringing the to trial. KSM deserves no better and no different than his peers. There is no obligation to bring any of them to trial, and indefinite detention or even summary execution of terrorists is perfectly legal. Unfortunately for Mohammed, his admitted show trial makes for better optics for our President's planned retreats.
Americans who are troubled by the decision to send alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York for trial will feel better about it when he's put to death, President Barack Obama said Tuesday. During a round of network television interviews conducted during Obama's visit to China, the president was asked about those who find it offensive that Mohammed will receive all the rights normally accorded to U.S. citizens when they are charged with a crime. "I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him," Obama told NBC's Chuck Todd. When Todd asked Obama if he was interfering in the trial process by declaring that Mohammed will be executed, Obama, a former constitutional law professor, insisted that he wasn't trying to dictate the result.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:54 AM
Comments
1
Somebody else (I forget who--blog up-alphabet from here) suggest that the Obamaplan is to find him not guilty (my take "dismissed with prejudice) because the perp was not Mirandized) to be followed by war-crimes trials of Bush and others.
Got to win this election some how!
Got to win this election some how!
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at November 18, 2009 01:16 PM (OmeRL)
2
Aside of the intention of making him look "tough" on terrorists (an impossible dream, to be sure) Obama & Co. will use this show trial to put Bush & Cheney on trial. Personally, I believe this to be the prime objective.
Posted by: Leo Pusateri at November 18, 2009 01:44 PM (Sh18W)
3
It is a win - win for Obama.
He gets a show trial.
He gets to release documents for trial that he got in trouble for when the White House did it. He gets people distracted about things that Bush did (of didn't do) so that some of the heat will be off of him regarding what he needs to do now (after all, BDS worked during the election).
He gets a show trial.
He gets to release documents for trial that he got in trouble for when the White House did it. He gets people distracted about things that Bush did (of didn't do) so that some of the heat will be off of him regarding what he needs to do now (after all, BDS worked during the election).
Posted by: Gunstar1 at November 18, 2009 03:07 PM (zh8i1)
4
I feel sorry for all of you. Paranoid, deluded and blind to the real world. If Bush and Cheney had had the balls to do the right thing and try terrorists
in the greatest democracy in the world, you'd be cheering. But, since it's Obama, you're stripes change. It's pathetic to watch.
When the Nuremberg trials were considered, many Americans didn't want those trials either. They felt that the only end result for Nazi scum should be the end of a rope. Cries of "what if they escape!?" and fear mongering was rife. Stalin in particular was adamant about the trials not going forward. And, FDR had to convince Churchill. In the end, a compromise was reached: a dual civilian and military court. (Since Germany was under military jurisdiction at the time.)
The Nuremberg Trials were widely mocked at the time around the world as "Show trials". And, in many ways, they were. There was no way in hell that they were going to let any of those Nazi's out of jail. Goering was going to swing one way or the other.
But, it wasn't about the Nazi's in the end. And, it's not about the terrorists in the end. It's about the rule of law. And, yes, it's imperfect. And, ugly. But, all of you here seem to have forgotten in your ideological zeal is that we are a nation of laws. And, not giving terrorists a trial - yes, even a show one - is worse.
That's what they understood back in 1945.
But, they were braver back then. Now, all anyone cares about is their little patch of reality.
in the greatest democracy in the world, you'd be cheering. But, since it's Obama, you're stripes change. It's pathetic to watch.
When the Nuremberg trials were considered, many Americans didn't want those trials either. They felt that the only end result for Nazi scum should be the end of a rope. Cries of "what if they escape!?" and fear mongering was rife. Stalin in particular was adamant about the trials not going forward. And, FDR had to convince Churchill. In the end, a compromise was reached: a dual civilian and military court. (Since Germany was under military jurisdiction at the time.)
The Nuremberg Trials were widely mocked at the time around the world as "Show trials". And, in many ways, they were. There was no way in hell that they were going to let any of those Nazi's out of jail. Goering was going to swing one way or the other.
But, it wasn't about the Nazi's in the end. And, it's not about the terrorists in the end. It's about the rule of law. And, yes, it's imperfect. And, ugly. But, all of you here seem to have forgotten in your ideological zeal is that we are a nation of laws. And, not giving terrorists a trial - yes, even a show one - is worse.
That's what they understood back in 1945.
But, they were braver back then. Now, all anyone cares about is their little patch of reality.
Posted by: Cold Heart at November 18, 2009 03:39 PM (qYBm3)
5
The Neuremberg trials were military courts, trying Nazis accused of heinous crimes. They set the standards for military trials. We welcome those types of trials, with all their safeguards for national security. Military trials need not be secret star chambers.
Posted by: garrettc at November 18, 2009 03:45 PM (DQjJA)
6
I just googled Nuermberg Trials and guess what? Of the first 18 defendents, 3 were found not guilty, 5 found guilty and sentenced to 10 -15 years, and 10 were found guilty and subsequently hanged.
Posted by: garrettc at November 18, 2009 03:52 PM (DQjJA)
7
>>"If Bush and Cheney had had the balls to do the right thing and try terrorists"
They did try terrorists. KSM was tried under the military court system which Obama begged for. He pled guilty and could have been executed already, if not for Obama and Holder.
>>"The Nuremberg Trials were widely mocked at the time around the world as "Show trials"."
The Nuremberg Trials were military trials, you ass. The sort of trials we are NOT giving KSM. Could you possibly be any more confused and obtuse?
They did try terrorists. KSM was tried under the military court system which Obama begged for. He pled guilty and could have been executed already, if not for Obama and Holder.
>>"The Nuremberg Trials were widely mocked at the time around the world as "Show trials"."
The Nuremberg Trials were military trials, you ass. The sort of trials we are NOT giving KSM. Could you possibly be any more confused and obtuse?
Posted by: Steve at November 18, 2009 04:05 PM (rSUtb)
8
>>"all of you here seem to have forgotten in your ideological zeal is that we are a nation of laws. And, not giving terrorists a trial - yes, even a show one - is worse."
They were given a trial, you witless buffoon. In spite of the best efforts of people like Holder to obstruct that.
They were given a trial, you witless buffoon. In spite of the best efforts of people like Holder to obstruct that.
Posted by: Steve at November 18, 2009 04:08 PM (rSUtb)
9
Actually, you're both wrong. The Nuremberg IMT was conducted as a military tribunal, but certain assumptions were altered in order to give it a public element. The trials were not closed to the public as military courts usually are. Also, the judges from the USA and France were civilians, not military, as were the prosecutors. Only the USSR submitted both judge and prosecutor from the military.
garrettc, I guess by your standard, since Nazi's were declared not guilty that a show trial is fine in order to convict even if the evidence is not there? (Read the Nuremberg transcripts. It's fascinating insight into the time and place.)
Behind the scenes at Nuremberg, the fight between the principle nations was right along those lines: the USSR wanted guilty decisions across the board. No exceptions. The USA and France wanted to rule by the law. Which is what happened.
In the case of the upcoming trials for WTC terrorist Mohammed, the Obama Administration is simply following previous structure.
The reason that he has not already been hung by a military court is the reason we are now getting public in country trials. Why didn't they conduct a military trial years ago? Because the Pentagon refused to move forward.
Therein lay the crux of this case. And, simply keeping Mohammed locked up had huge issues too.
The Pentagon is not interested in being a prison full time. It's not.
The Bush WH dittered on this issue. They wanted to bend the law to their liking, but it would not.
So, nothing happened. It sat and festered.
Obama is cleaning up Bush's mistake.
garrettc, I guess by your standard, since Nazi's were declared not guilty that a show trial is fine in order to convict even if the evidence is not there? (Read the Nuremberg transcripts. It's fascinating insight into the time and place.)
Behind the scenes at Nuremberg, the fight between the principle nations was right along those lines: the USSR wanted guilty decisions across the board. No exceptions. The USA and France wanted to rule by the law. Which is what happened.
In the case of the upcoming trials for WTC terrorist Mohammed, the Obama Administration is simply following previous structure.
The reason that he has not already been hung by a military court is the reason we are now getting public in country trials. Why didn't they conduct a military trial years ago? Because the Pentagon refused to move forward.
Therein lay the crux of this case. And, simply keeping Mohammed locked up had huge issues too.
The Pentagon is not interested in being a prison full time. It's not.
The Bush WH dittered on this issue. They wanted to bend the law to their liking, but it would not.
So, nothing happened. It sat and festered.
Obama is cleaning up Bush's mistake.
Posted by: DJBuzz at November 18, 2009 04:13 PM (adGIV)
10
You need to look at this from a different perspective. Just maybe Holder mede his decision based upon the results obtained in the few military commission trials already held. He may well get a better decision in the Feeral Courts.
I still think New Yorkers should be exised of the four to five years of part of New York being turned into a police state with closed roads and constant searches.
I still think New Yorkers should be exised of the four to five years of part of New York being turned into a police state with closed roads and constant searches.
Posted by: davod at November 18, 2009 04:18 PM (GUZAT)
11
Sorry, that should be "why haven't they executed KSM already" above. Writing on a new netbook. Tiny keyboard.
Posted by: DJBuzz at November 18, 2009 04:18 PM (adGIV)
12
"The reason that he has not already been hung by a military court is the reason we are now getting public in country trials. Why didn't they conduct a military trial years ago? Because the Pentagon refused to move forward."
As I recall the delay was caused by continuous litigation through the US court system. Resulting in the SCOTUS reversing 200 years of Habeus precedent.
As I recall the delay was caused by continuous litigation through the US court system. Resulting in the SCOTUS reversing 200 years of Habeus precedent.
Posted by: davod at November 18, 2009 04:23 PM (GUZAT)
13
>>"You need to look at this from a different perspective. Just maybe Holder mede his decision based upon the results obtained in the few military commission trials already held."
KSM wanted to plead guilty and be executed under the military commission trials. How much better a result do you think Holder can get? How much superior do you want the military trials to be?
KSM wanted to plead guilty and be executed under the military commission trials. How much better a result do you think Holder can get? How much superior do you want the military trials to be?
Posted by: Steve at November 18, 2009 04:23 PM (rSUtb)
14
>>"Actually, you're both wrong. The Nuremberg IMT was conducted as a military tribunal, but certain assumptions were altered in order to give it a public element."
So how was it not a military trial, doofus? Which rules of evidence appiled?
>>"The trials were not closed to the public as military courts usually are"
Yeah, now there's a meaningful distinction.
>>"The reason that he has not already been hung by a military court is the reason we are now getting public in country trials. Why didn't they conduct a military trial years ago? Because the Pentagon refused to move forward."
You ignorant jackass, the reason it took so long for the mlitary trials to occur is that leftist lawyers, including Holder, spent years fighting the military tribunals in court.
Take your ignorance and dishonesty back to the Democratic Underground.
So how was it not a military trial, doofus? Which rules of evidence appiled?
>>"The trials were not closed to the public as military courts usually are"
Yeah, now there's a meaningful distinction.
>>"The reason that he has not already been hung by a military court is the reason we are now getting public in country trials. Why didn't they conduct a military trial years ago? Because the Pentagon refused to move forward."
You ignorant jackass, the reason it took so long for the mlitary trials to occur is that leftist lawyers, including Holder, spent years fighting the military tribunals in court.
Take your ignorance and dishonesty back to the Democratic Underground.
Posted by: Steve at November 18, 2009 04:30 PM (rSUtb)
15
"why haven't they executed KSM already"
Why don't you answer your own question? Why didn't they execute KSM already? He wanted to be executed. The Pentagon and Bush administration wanted to execue him.
Put your last remaining grey cell to work figuring out why he's still alive. Hint: the name "Holder" is part of the answer.
Why don't you answer your own question? Why didn't they execute KSM already? He wanted to be executed. The Pentagon and Bush administration wanted to execue him.
Put your last remaining grey cell to work figuring out why he's still alive. Hint: the name "Holder" is part of the answer.
Posted by: Steve at November 18, 2009 04:33 PM (rSUtb)
16
Holder kept Bush from summarily executing KSM? How exactly?
Posted by: Jim at November 18, 2009 04:36 PM (KD9e1)
17
Jim, are you the same Jim that was yucking it up about the Hood murders?
Hey Cold Heart, you just accued everyone here of having Paranoia. You lied. I invite you to beg for forgiveness. I can't speak for everyone else here, but I may or may not grant you absolution. Maybe about a 20% chance. But you'll probably have to ask every other person individually. After that, you can start making claims.
See how nice I am?
Hey Cold Heart, you just accued everyone here of having Paranoia. You lied. I invite you to beg for forgiveness. I can't speak for everyone else here, but I may or may not grant you absolution. Maybe about a 20% chance. But you'll probably have to ask every other person individually. After that, you can start making claims.
See how nice I am?
Posted by: brando at November 18, 2009 05:50 PM (IPGju)
18
This is a beautiful act of subversion executed by the Obama administration. Holder has set the stage for a condition where either we destroy the constitutionally-guided legal system or we let Khalid Sheikh Mohammed go free. Obama wins in either case.
Americans will be forced to set aside a system of due process, Miranda rights and legal objection to torture in order to successfully prosecute. Plus, Obama's declaration that he's already guilty in front of a global audience sort of eliminates any possibility of a fair trial. In one move, Obama's extended the State of Exception to the fullest extent of the Federal justice system.
And as a good Stalinist, he brags about how Americans will be proud, cheering the already determined conviction. Wins on multiple levels for Obama. The end of our justice system as it was known, and one step closer to his end game. Now if we can just torch the economy (perhaps health care and another stimulus will be enough to get the Chinese to cease lending) and a "national emergency" will be all but certain. Remember, Obama's in a hurry. He's not going to fail to pull this off in his first four years, given he won't have a supporting Congress in one year and won't have re-election as things are in three.
Americans will be forced to set aside a system of due process, Miranda rights and legal objection to torture in order to successfully prosecute. Plus, Obama's declaration that he's already guilty in front of a global audience sort of eliminates any possibility of a fair trial. In one move, Obama's extended the State of Exception to the fullest extent of the Federal justice system.
And as a good Stalinist, he brags about how Americans will be proud, cheering the already determined conviction. Wins on multiple levels for Obama. The end of our justice system as it was known, and one step closer to his end game. Now if we can just torch the economy (perhaps health care and another stimulus will be enough to get the Chinese to cease lending) and a "national emergency" will be all but certain. Remember, Obama's in a hurry. He's not going to fail to pull this off in his first four years, given he won't have a supporting Congress in one year and won't have re-election as things are in three.
Posted by: HatlessHessian at November 18, 2009 06:50 PM (7r7wy)
19
"The trials were not closed to the public as military courts usually are."
DJ - It's damn tough to have a show trial if it's closed to the public, isn't it?
DJ - It's damn tough to have a show trial if it's closed to the public, isn't it?
Posted by: daleyrocks at November 18, 2009 07:37 PM (3O5/e)
20
>It's damn tough to have a show trial if it's closed to the public, isn't it?
One mustn't forget that liberals are incapable of nuance and recognizing abstract use of language. Show trials signify the spectacle of the publicity of the event through institutional discourse and the arrival at a predetermined outcome. They are for show in that they use the construct of the court to demonstrate the extent of the institution's power.
If that's too hard for you, think of it this way: Obama's going to SHOW you he is in charge. No, he's not going to put on a show, sell tickets and speak on a stage. It's a show of power which is nothing more than a symbolic display of the extent of control intended to intimidate.
One mustn't forget that liberals are incapable of nuance and recognizing abstract use of language. Show trials signify the spectacle of the publicity of the event through institutional discourse and the arrival at a predetermined outcome. They are for show in that they use the construct of the court to demonstrate the extent of the institution's power.
If that's too hard for you, think of it this way: Obama's going to SHOW you he is in charge. No, he's not going to put on a show, sell tickets and speak on a stage. It's a show of power which is nothing more than a symbolic display of the extent of control intended to intimidate.
Posted by: HatlessHessian at November 18, 2009 09:19 PM (7r7wy)
21
>>"Holder kept Bush from summarily executing KSM? How exactly?"
How "exactly" was Bush supposed to "summarily execute" anyone? It would be great if lefties ever learned the meanings of words.
As for Holder, get off your butt and do a little research into what he's been up to these past several years.
How "exactly" was Bush supposed to "summarily execute" anyone? It would be great if lefties ever learned the meanings of words.
As for Holder, get off your butt and do a little research into what he's been up to these past several years.
Posted by: Steve at November 18, 2009 09:26 PM (QrdfE)
22
Here. Read up on the new Dem head at Justice.
Posted by: Steve at November 18, 2009 09:37 PM (QrdfE)
23
Hi Steve,
Here's CYs wisdom on this subject:
There is no obligation to bring any of them to trial, and indefinite detention or even summary execution of terrorists is perfectly legal.
Now of course he's dead wrong, and of course he's no lefty. Feel free to call him out on the issue.
The point of all this is that KSM is alive because we're a nation of laws, and whether you like it or not we need to follow them. Holden isn't the problem here, it's folks like you and CY who want to flush our laws down the toilet because you're scared of this or that boogieman that are the problem.
Here's CYs wisdom on this subject:
There is no obligation to bring any of them to trial, and indefinite detention or even summary execution of terrorists is perfectly legal.
Now of course he's dead wrong, and of course he's no lefty. Feel free to call him out on the issue.
The point of all this is that KSM is alive because we're a nation of laws, and whether you like it or not we need to follow them. Holden isn't the problem here, it's folks like you and CY who want to flush our laws down the toilet because you're scared of this or that boogieman that are the problem.
Posted by: Jim at November 18, 2009 09:45 PM (KD9e1)
24
And the talking heads say that should KSM or his pals be acquitted, they will immediately be re-arrested and held forever. Obama, they say, would never allow terrorists to be released in the US. If so, how can anyone suggest that our civilian criminal justice system is, well, just? How can anyone suggest that it is superior to the military system?
May I suggest an alternative? Obama and Holder absolutely would allow KSM and others to be released in the US. If they are acquitted, and that is, at the very least, a reasonable possibility, this administration would claim it a vindication of the rule of law and claim their hands were bound.
Just watch.
May I suggest an alternative? Obama and Holder absolutely would allow KSM and others to be released in the US. If they are acquitted, and that is, at the very least, a reasonable possibility, this administration would claim it a vindication of the rule of law and claim their hands were bound.
Just watch.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at November 18, 2009 09:47 PM (goVFs)
25
Jim, I'm exactly right when I state:
There is no obligation to bring any of them to trial, and indefinite detention or even summary execution of terrorists is perfectly legal.
We target terrorists for extermination every single day, be it by a rifleman's bullet or a circling drone's missile. They are not afforded due process or legal council, and are exterminated like vermin in dozens of countries around the world as the opportunity arises. This is perfectly legal and just.
We have zero legal obligation to take terrorists prisoner either under Hague or the various Geneva conventions. As unlawful enemy combatants they may be summarily executed. If they are POWs, they may be held until the end of the conflict, without a trial.
There is no obligation to bring any of them to trial, and indefinite detention or even summary execution of terrorists is perfectly legal.
We target terrorists for extermination every single day, be it by a rifleman's bullet or a circling drone's missile. They are not afforded due process or legal council, and are exterminated like vermin in dozens of countries around the world as the opportunity arises. This is perfectly legal and just.
We have zero legal obligation to take terrorists prisoner either under Hague or the various Geneva conventions. As unlawful enemy combatants they may be summarily executed. If they are POWs, they may be held until the end of the conflict, without a trial.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 18, 2009 10:13 PM (WjpSC)
26
Mike, KSM couldn't be released in the US, he has no papers.
Posted by: Jim at November 18, 2009 10:13 PM (KD9e1)
27
>>"Here's CYs wisdom on this subject"
>>"Now of course he's dead wrong"
He's not "dead wrong", you illiterate dope. It is perfectly legal to execute illegal combatants on the battlefield. The President has no authority to order that KSM or anybody else in US custody be "summarily executed". His ordering it makes it NOT "summarily executed". As I said in the beginning, it would be great if you lefties could learn the meanings of words.
It's amusng to see you lefties, after crying that BusHitler was shredding the law for several years, now demanding to know why Bush did not behave like the lawless thug you didn't want him to be.
But all this is fruitless, You scum don't care about KSM any more than you cared about the Iraq War. Everything is political posturing for you.
>>"Now of course he's dead wrong"
He's not "dead wrong", you illiterate dope. It is perfectly legal to execute illegal combatants on the battlefield. The President has no authority to order that KSM or anybody else in US custody be "summarily executed". His ordering it makes it NOT "summarily executed". As I said in the beginning, it would be great if you lefties could learn the meanings of words.
It's amusng to see you lefties, after crying that BusHitler was shredding the law for several years, now demanding to know why Bush did not behave like the lawless thug you didn't want him to be.
But all this is fruitless, You scum don't care about KSM any more than you cared about the Iraq War. Everything is political posturing for you.
Posted by: Steve at November 18, 2009 10:21 PM (vADQi)
28
>>"Holden isn't the problem here"
Do you ever bother to read anything, "Jim"?
Holden IS the problem. That's already been documented.
Do you ever bother to read anything, "Jim"?
Holden IS the problem. That's already been documented.
Posted by: Steve at November 18, 2009 10:24 PM (vADQi)
29
>>"KSM couldn't be released in the US, he has no papers"
Oh, shut UP, you ignorant clown.
Al Gore knows more about science than you know about this topic. And what Al knows of science would fit on the back of a matchbook cover.
Oh, shut UP, you ignorant clown.
Al Gore knows more about science than you know about this topic. And what Al knows of science would fit on the back of a matchbook cover.
Posted by: Steve at November 18, 2009 10:26 PM (vADQi)
30
Hey CY,
First tell Steve he doesn't seem to agree. Just once I'd like to see to righties who obviously disagree with each other address their differences instead of only responding to "stupid lefties". Are you guys afraid to be seen disagreeing or what?
Secondly try and find a law, convention, or treaty that says summary execution of terrorists is legal and please post the link here. I think you'll find the issue is murky at best. And of course once you take someone into custody putting one into their skull is off the table.
First tell Steve he doesn't seem to agree. Just once I'd like to see to righties who obviously disagree with each other address their differences instead of only responding to "stupid lefties". Are you guys afraid to be seen disagreeing or what?
Secondly try and find a law, convention, or treaty that says summary execution of terrorists is legal and please post the link here. I think you'll find the issue is murky at best. And of course once you take someone into custody putting one into their skull is off the table.
Posted by: Jim at November 18, 2009 10:27 PM (KD9e1)
31
Steve,
I don't know what your problem is, I hope you're only this irritable online.
What I said is perfectly correct, KSM has zero legal ability to walk around free in the US. He can be brought here to trial, he could not be released into the country. He has no passport, green card, visa etc... I have no idea why that fact upsets you so much.
I don't know what your problem is, I hope you're only this irritable online.
What I said is perfectly correct, KSM has zero legal ability to walk around free in the US. He can be brought here to trial, he could not be released into the country. He has no passport, green card, visa etc... I have no idea why that fact upsets you so much.
Posted by: Jim at November 18, 2009 10:32 PM (KD9e1)
32
Steve,
Give me a link to any international law or treaty that says we can execute illegal enemy combatants on the battlefield in a way that extends to cover a guy like KSM who was sitting in Karachi when we found him. The entire world is not "the battlefield" in international law.
As for the rest of your insults and bluster, I wish you'd just skip it, it doesn't make you or your case look any more impressive here than in did on the playground. Sticks and stones.
Give me a link to any international law or treaty that says we can execute illegal enemy combatants on the battlefield in a way that extends to cover a guy like KSM who was sitting in Karachi when we found him. The entire world is not "the battlefield" in international law.
As for the rest of your insults and bluster, I wish you'd just skip it, it doesn't make you or your case look any more impressive here than in did on the playground. Sticks and stones.
Posted by: Jim at November 18, 2009 10:48 PM (KD9e1)
33
Whoops, KSM was captured in Rawalpindi, not Karachi. My bad.
Posted by: Jim at November 18, 2009 10:52 PM (KD9e1)
34
Jim - You are not helping yourself out here with your ignorance of the subject matter. Obama himself has said there are probably 75 terrorists at Gitmo who he does not plan on trying or releasing because they are too dangerous.
Why don't you actually read up on the relevant treaties yourself to understand what customs under the laws of land warfare say, Jim. You seem to be the only one unclear on the subject.
In not interested in the dictionary definition of indefinite or its common usage either.
Why don't you actually read up on the relevant treaties yourself to understand what customs under the laws of land warfare say, Jim. You seem to be the only one unclear on the subject.
In not interested in the dictionary definition of indefinite or its common usage either.
Posted by: daleyrocks at November 18, 2009 11:51 PM (3O5/e)
35
Jim:
Why does Obama perpetrate and extend Georgio Agamben's State of Exception? This was the "ultimate evil" of Bush, to which many on the left have declared justifies international court hearings, trials and verdicts.
It is impossible for one to evaluate Obama's conduct without seeing it as not only an extension and advancement of the State of Exception, but an abject profanity on the cause of Homo Sacer. Obama is pissing on the Christ of the Left.
How do you reconcile the violence of your modern Lenin?
Why does Obama perpetrate and extend Georgio Agamben's State of Exception? This was the "ultimate evil" of Bush, to which many on the left have declared justifies international court hearings, trials and verdicts.
It is impossible for one to evaluate Obama's conduct without seeing it as not only an extension and advancement of the State of Exception, but an abject profanity on the cause of Homo Sacer. Obama is pissing on the Christ of the Left.
How do you reconcile the violence of your modern Lenin?
Posted by: HatlessHessian at November 19, 2009 01:30 AM (7r7wy)
36
Hi Daleyrocks,
I take it you can't link to the relevant info at this time, but thanks for adding zip to the mix.
Hatless,
It's a complete mess, I agree. Once you lock people up without evidence for 7 years or so it's hard to know what to do with them. Toss some abuse and torture into the mix and you have a cluster f. We're going to end up with a bunch of guys rotting in bases in Afghanistan for years to come.
And I also agree Obama has done a poor job of backing away from the lawless war powers/states secrets crap the Bush Admin used to justify all sorts of garbage. Once you give an office a power it's a lot harder to get them to give it up. I have no doubt you were very vocal in speaking up about the abuses to our civil liberties like warrant-less wiretaps and the rest the past 8 years. We certainly need to be consistent about our principles. If you take a look at sites like Emptywheel and Daily Kos you'll see plenty of lefties upset with Obama for exactly what you are talking about. You see it now too from RedState and the Freepers, but strangely they were cheerleading the same abuses when Bush was in office.
I take it you can't link to the relevant info at this time, but thanks for adding zip to the mix.
Hatless,
It's a complete mess, I agree. Once you lock people up without evidence for 7 years or so it's hard to know what to do with them. Toss some abuse and torture into the mix and you have a cluster f. We're going to end up with a bunch of guys rotting in bases in Afghanistan for years to come.
And I also agree Obama has done a poor job of backing away from the lawless war powers/states secrets crap the Bush Admin used to justify all sorts of garbage. Once you give an office a power it's a lot harder to get them to give it up. I have no doubt you were very vocal in speaking up about the abuses to our civil liberties like warrant-less wiretaps and the rest the past 8 years. We certainly need to be consistent about our principles. If you take a look at sites like Emptywheel and Daily Kos you'll see plenty of lefties upset with Obama for exactly what you are talking about. You see it now too from RedState and the Freepers, but strangely they were cheerleading the same abuses when Bush was in office.
Posted by: Jim at November 19, 2009 01:45 AM (KD9e1)
37
Jim - Do some work, learn something. I first studied this 30 years ago and am not in doubt. You are. Grow up sport.
Posted by: daleyrocks at November 19, 2009 09:49 AM (3O5/e)
38
See the problem is daley, I'm also sure it's not clearly legal to shoot some one in Rawalpindi because you're fighting allies of theirs in Afghanistan, and they planned a horrible murder. I'm sure during your vast legal studies you ran across the idea of the burden of proof, where one making a claim that something is "perfectly legal" has to bring more to the table than "trust me".
Posted by: Jim at November 19, 2009 10:37 AM (KD9e1)
39
>>"I'm also sure it's not clearly legal to shoot some one in Rawalpindi because you're fighting allies"
You are "sure it's not clearly legal"?
The fact that your writing is gibberish reflects the confusion in your mind. Next you'll be telling us that you are "certain that certainty is a bad thng".
Your muddled thinking and writing aside, it is in fact "clearly legal" to execute combatants who ignore the laws of war. For instance, enemy fighters who wear no uniform fall into this category. So are those who wear their enemies uniforms. For example, we captured SS soldiers in WWII wearing American uniform and shot them on the spot.
As people here keep telling you, you really ought to find out something about this topic before coming here and basically telling us "I'm unclear about all of this".
When a lefty has the facts on his side, he uses them. When the facts are not on his side he goes into this "the facts are unclear" dance.
The Geneva Convention is actually very clear that unlawful combatants are not protected by it.
You are "sure it's not clearly legal"?
The fact that your writing is gibberish reflects the confusion in your mind. Next you'll be telling us that you are "certain that certainty is a bad thng".
Your muddled thinking and writing aside, it is in fact "clearly legal" to execute combatants who ignore the laws of war. For instance, enemy fighters who wear no uniform fall into this category. So are those who wear their enemies uniforms. For example, we captured SS soldiers in WWII wearing American uniform and shot them on the spot.
As people here keep telling you, you really ought to find out something about this topic before coming here and basically telling us "I'm unclear about all of this".
When a lefty has the facts on his side, he uses them. When the facts are not on his side he goes into this "the facts are unclear" dance.
The Geneva Convention is actually very clear that unlawful combatants are not protected by it.
Posted by: Steve at November 19, 2009 01:08 PM (fqDKB)
40
>>"I'm also sure it's not clearly legal to shoot some one in Rawalpindi because you're fighting allies of theirs in Afghanistan"
We're not "shooting some one in Rawalpindi because {we're} fighting allies of theirs in Afghanistan".
As usual, you display your near total ignorance of what's going on. If we shoot someone in Rawalpindi (which, in fact, we don't) then it is because we are fighting somebody in Rawalpindi. Not because they are allied to anybody anywhere.
We're not "shooting some one in Rawalpindi because {we're} fighting allies of theirs in Afghanistan".
As usual, you display your near total ignorance of what's going on. If we shoot someone in Rawalpindi (which, in fact, we don't) then it is because we are fighting somebody in Rawalpindi. Not because they are allied to anybody anywhere.
Posted by: Steve at November 19, 2009 01:13 PM (fqDKB)
41
>>"If you take a look at sites like Emptywheel and Daily Kos you'll see plenty of lefties upset with Obama for exactly what you are talking about. You see it now too from RedState and the Freepers"
More dishonesty. The people at Redstate and Free Republic are upset with Obama, but not for the same reasons as the Kossacks such as yourself. They're just pointing out that Obama lied, for the 17,723rd time. They're also pointing out that the left always used the war as a political ploy and never cared about it for itself. Considering your abject ignorance of the matters being discussed you plainly fall into this category yourself. You're here to defend Obama, not to hold him accountable for his lies.
More dishonesty. The people at Redstate and Free Republic are upset with Obama, but not for the same reasons as the Kossacks such as yourself. They're just pointing out that Obama lied, for the 17,723rd time. They're also pointing out that the left always used the war as a political ploy and never cared about it for itself. Considering your abject ignorance of the matters being discussed you plainly fall into this category yourself. You're here to defend Obama, not to hold him accountable for his lies.
Posted by: Steve at November 19, 2009 01:22 PM (fqDKB)
42
What would "you" do to finish the fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda, if you were the chief potentate in charge calling the shots?
Neither our government nor any other government in the world, with the one possible exception of Israel, has the political will to do what's necessary to "finish the fight".
There's only one way to finish it and no one is willing to go there. So, we'll either get out or be stuck there forever. It's a bad situation anyway you look at it.
Neither our government nor any other government in the world, with the one possible exception of Israel, has the political will to do what's necessary to "finish the fight".
There's only one way to finish it and no one is willing to go there. So, we'll either get out or be stuck there forever. It's a bad situation anyway you look at it.
Posted by: Dude at November 19, 2009 02:13 PM (byA+E)
43
Steve try and keep up. The discussion is whether or not it would have been "perfectly legal to summarily execute" KSM upon capture, which not co-incidentally is a claim made by CY in the post that is the basis for these comments.
Not a combatant on the battlefield lacking a uniform, or the SS in WII -- by the way, it's perfectly legal to wear the uniform of the other side as long as you're not fighting in said uniform, look it up.
As for the rest of your ranting...
Not a combatant on the battlefield lacking a uniform, or the SS in WII -- by the way, it's perfectly legal to wear the uniform of the other side as long as you're not fighting in said uniform, look it up.
As for the rest of your ranting...
Posted by: Jim at November 19, 2009 02:45 PM (3GzXA)
44
>"The discussion is whether or not it would have been "perfectly legal to summarily execute" KSM upon capture"
It is "perfectly legal", as has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
>>"Not a combatant on the battlefield lacking a uniform, or the SS in WII"
The people in question are combatants on the battlefield not wearing uniforms. Try to keep up.
As for the rest of your inane babble ...
It is "perfectly legal", as has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
>>"Not a combatant on the battlefield lacking a uniform, or the SS in WII"
The people in question are combatants on the battlefield not wearing uniforms. Try to keep up.
As for the rest of your inane babble ...
Posted by: Steve at November 19, 2009 04:13 PM (fqDKB)
Posted by: Jim at November 19, 2009 04:40 PM (3GzXA)
46
>>"What battlefield was KSM on?"
You don't think that KSM is a terrorist? That's as intelligent as anything else you've said so far. A terrorists battlefield is wherever he happens to be.
But it would be consistent with your other nonsense if you argued that KSM was wrongfully arrested and should be released. After all, he was picked up in Pakistan, in Rawalpindi, that place you say we have no business "shooting" people.
Let's drop the fiction that you support either military or civilian trials. You want KSM released with US apologies.
You don't think that KSM is a terrorist? That's as intelligent as anything else you've said so far. A terrorists battlefield is wherever he happens to be.
But it would be consistent with your other nonsense if you argued that KSM was wrongfully arrested and should be released. After all, he was picked up in Pakistan, in Rawalpindi, that place you say we have no business "shooting" people.
Let's drop the fiction that you support either military or civilian trials. You want KSM released with US apologies.
Posted by: Steve at November 19, 2009 04:50 PM (fqDKB)
47
Nice smears Steve. Of course KSM was a terrorist, so was McVeigh. It's not perfectly legal for us to shoot either on sight. They are criminals, not unlawful combatants on a battlefield.
Did you notice the Brits legally capping IRA members and supporters as they stood drinking their pints in Boston bars? Me neither. But of course that would have been perfectly legal, right???
Did you notice the Brits legally capping IRA members and supporters as they stood drinking their pints in Boston bars? Me neither. But of course that would have been perfectly legal, right???
Posted by: Jim at November 19, 2009 05:18 PM (3GzXA)
48
Jim - You have not provided any support for your assertion that is is not legal to hold enemy combatants without trial, legal or otherwise, until the cessation of hostilities. Following the link in the post CY provided, Obama clearly thinks it is legal. Apart from something you pulled out your rear end, where is your evidence otherwise?
BTW, what has emptywheel been proved right about on the subject of warrantless surveillance or prisoner abuse. Could you please lay out her track record for everyone? I believe it is pitiful.
BTW, what has emptywheel been proved right about on the subject of warrantless surveillance or prisoner abuse. Could you please lay out her track record for everyone? I believe it is pitiful.
Posted by: daleyrocks at November 19, 2009 06:31 PM (3O5/e)
49
Jim - Aren't those goalposts getting heavy?
You have still not provided any positive evidence for any of your assertions, only argument by flawed analogy.
FAIL!!!!!
You have still not provided any positive evidence for any of your assertions, only argument by flawed analogy.
FAIL!!!!!
Posted by: daleyrocks at November 19, 2009 06:35 PM (3O5/e)
50
Hi Daleyrocks,
Where did I ever say it was illegal to hold enemy combatants without trial until the cessation of hostilities? Oh that's right, I didn't.
If you know of a law that states KSM could have been legally shot upon his discovery in Pakistan, link to it. Your claim, your burden of proof. If you just want to ask me why I haven't proven a negative yet don't bother.
Where did I ever say it was illegal to hold enemy combatants without trial until the cessation of hostilities? Oh that's right, I didn't.
If you know of a law that states KSM could have been legally shot upon his discovery in Pakistan, link to it. Your claim, your burden of proof. If you just want to ask me why I haven't proven a negative yet don't bother.
Posted by: Jim at November 19, 2009 06:50 PM (3GzXA)
51
>>"Of course KSM was a terrorist, so was McVeigh. It's not perfectly legal for us to shoot either on sight. They are criminals, not unlawful combatants on a battlefield."
That's your worthless and uninformed opinion, and one not shared even by the Obama administration.
But you continue to live in your own fantasy world where facts don't penetrate. I won't make any more fun of you. On this thread.
I'm sure you'll be popping off again around here.
That's your worthless and uninformed opinion, and one not shared even by the Obama administration.
But you continue to live in your own fantasy world where facts don't penetrate. I won't make any more fun of you. On this thread.
I'm sure you'll be popping off again around here.
Posted by: Steve at November 19, 2009 08:54 PM (UfZdy)
52
>>"Did you notice the Brits legally capping IRA members and supporters as they stood drinking their pints in Boston bars"
Yes, you witless and criminally ignorant clod.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist one more.)
Not Boston actually, but they did terminate a number of IRA members with extreme prejudice and without benefit of a trial. You could look it up, assuming you possess more than one feeble brain cell.
Yes, you witless and criminally ignorant clod.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist one more.)
Not Boston actually, but they did terminate a number of IRA members with extreme prejudice and without benefit of a trial. You could look it up, assuming you possess more than one feeble brain cell.
Posted by: Steve at November 19, 2009 09:00 PM (UfZdy)
53
Steve, read up on the Stevens Report. Rouge British intelligence agents carried out all kinds of killings, but the certainly were not legal.
http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/british-intelligence-and-the-ira/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevens_Report
As for not agreeing with the Obama Administration, yeah no joke, I don't, lot's of people don't when it comes to the legality of things like drone attacks in Pakistan.
The debate over the legality of remote-controlled air strikes turns largely on the question of whether the American pursuit of terrorists represents an active armed conflict analogous to a conventional war between nations. As such, the debate over the drones is one example of the broader disagreement which has resulted from the application of international humanitarian law (IHL) to the “war on terror.” IHL, which regulates armed conflict between states, requires the existence of an active conflict, and only applies within the geographic limits of that conflict. Within these limits, IHL authorizes the killing of enemy combatants, including remotely, subject to limitations meant to assure that the use of force is necessary, minimally injurious to civilians, and proportional to expected military gains. Outside a zone of active conflict, however, IHL does not apply, and the U.S. ability to kill individuals without according them due process of law is restrained by a 1976 executive order against assassinations and, arguably, by international human rights law.
While some observers would call Afghanistan a zone of active conflict, far fewer would apply that description to Pakistan, and drones operated by the C.I.A. have been active in targeting militants there, including Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, who was killed in August. American drones have also targeted militants in Yemen. In extending IHL to cover these strikes, supporters of the program have argued for the application of IHL wherever terrorists are found, not merely within geographically bounded zones of conflict. This is a novel argument, and as such, the use of Predators to target individuals outside the “war zones” of Afghanistan and Iraq arguably represents a violation of international law. It also represents a sharp departure from pre-9/11 U.S. policy, when C.I.A. drones were limited to conducting surveillance and the U.S. Government criticized Israel for conducting targeted killings of Palestinian militants.
http://www.harvardilj.org/digest/archives/1033
You're long on insults and bluster, but you don't bring much in the way of documentation to support your missives. Care to step up to the plate?
http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/british-intelligence-and-the-ira/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevens_Report
As for not agreeing with the Obama Administration, yeah no joke, I don't, lot's of people don't when it comes to the legality of things like drone attacks in Pakistan.
The debate over the legality of remote-controlled air strikes turns largely on the question of whether the American pursuit of terrorists represents an active armed conflict analogous to a conventional war between nations. As such, the debate over the drones is one example of the broader disagreement which has resulted from the application of international humanitarian law (IHL) to the “war on terror.” IHL, which regulates armed conflict between states, requires the existence of an active conflict, and only applies within the geographic limits of that conflict. Within these limits, IHL authorizes the killing of enemy combatants, including remotely, subject to limitations meant to assure that the use of force is necessary, minimally injurious to civilians, and proportional to expected military gains. Outside a zone of active conflict, however, IHL does not apply, and the U.S. ability to kill individuals without according them due process of law is restrained by a 1976 executive order against assassinations and, arguably, by international human rights law.
While some observers would call Afghanistan a zone of active conflict, far fewer would apply that description to Pakistan, and drones operated by the C.I.A. have been active in targeting militants there, including Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, who was killed in August. American drones have also targeted militants in Yemen. In extending IHL to cover these strikes, supporters of the program have argued for the application of IHL wherever terrorists are found, not merely within geographically bounded zones of conflict. This is a novel argument, and as such, the use of Predators to target individuals outside the “war zones” of Afghanistan and Iraq arguably represents a violation of international law. It also represents a sharp departure from pre-9/11 U.S. policy, when C.I.A. drones were limited to conducting surveillance and the U.S. Government criticized Israel for conducting targeted killings of Palestinian militants.
http://www.harvardilj.org/digest/archives/1033
You're long on insults and bluster, but you don't bring much in the way of documentation to support your missives. Care to step up to the plate?
Posted by: Jim at November 19, 2009 09:48 PM (KD9e1)
54
Gotta proof before hitting post, that should of course read "Rogue British..." not rouge British, I'm pretty sure they did not color their cheeks.
Posted by: Jim at November 19, 2009 09:51 PM (KD9e1)
55
"Where did I ever say it was illegal to hold enemy combatants without trial until the cessation of hostilities? Oh that's right, I didn't."
Jim - I would say right here:
"Here's CYs wisdom on this subject:
There is no obligation to bring any of them to trial, and indefinite detention or even summary execution of terrorists is perfectly legal.
Now of course he's dead wrong, and of course he's no lefty. Feel free to call him out on the issue."
Is your excuse that because you are unable to express yourself clearly you did not actually say or mean what you actually said?
Jim - I would say right here:
"Here's CYs wisdom on this subject:
There is no obligation to bring any of them to trial, and indefinite detention or even summary execution of terrorists is perfectly legal.
Now of course he's dead wrong, and of course he's no lefty. Feel free to call him out on the issue."
Is your excuse that because you are unable to express yourself clearly you did not actually say or mean what you actually said?
Posted by: daleyrocks at November 19, 2009 10:22 PM (3O5/e)
56
No excuse necessary DR, I've been talking about the summary execution part of that sentence in all but two posts I've made in this tread, and those two were direct answers to other questions that were asked of me. Context is key. I could have put little ellipsis in front of the beginning of that quote, but I was under the assumption that any adult reading my posts from start to finish would follow along with the context of KSM and summary execution.
Have you found the time to link to the laws you read about 30 years ago that would have made the execution of KSM in Pakistan legal? Take your time, you still have a chance to bring something to this discussion.
Have you found the time to link to the laws you read about 30 years ago that would have made the execution of KSM in Pakistan legal? Take your time, you still have a chance to bring something to this discussion.
Posted by: Jim at November 19, 2009 10:37 PM (KD9e1)
57
Jim - So you will now be revising your statement to make it clear that CY is not dead wrong to provide the appropriatwe context?
Posted by: daleyrocks at November 20, 2009 09:19 AM (3O5/e)
58
...try and find a law, convention, or treaty that says summary execution of terrorists is legal
It's in the Geneva Conventions; read any version up to and including 1949.
You have to look in two places, namely the definition of "combatant," and the treatment of spies. By definition, an individual engaged in combat but not in uniform is a spy. Spies can be executed summarily.
It is also in the international law articulated by the UN War Crimes Commission, which allowed the formation of military tribunals in 1947 for “devastation, destruction or damage of public or private property not justified by military necessity… murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation or other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population….” War against civilians is a violation of the rules of war. Terrorism by definition is war against civilians.
The situation is a little murky only because al Qaeda is an army without a country, which is a bit of a new animal. In my humble opinion, the most applicable precedent for dealing with al Qaeda and similar organizations is the law pertaining to piracy, because pirates, like al Qaeda, are quasi-military groups engaged in assaults on civilians, the only difference being that the object is not enrichment but ideology -- and historically, even that distinction gets blurry quickly, as is occurring in Afghanistan. Pirates are regarded in international law as “hostis humani generis” (enemies of humanity) and are subject to summary execution.
Pick your precedent, they all point the same way. Terrorists may be killed without trial. Anything we do after we let them live -- anything -- is more merciful than what is demanded by international law, for which reason every word of the left's caterwauling about President Bush's violations of international law are pure, unadulterated bunk.
You might like to read this post, which contains links for further reading.
It's in the Geneva Conventions; read any version up to and including 1949.
You have to look in two places, namely the definition of "combatant," and the treatment of spies. By definition, an individual engaged in combat but not in uniform is a spy. Spies can be executed summarily.
It is also in the international law articulated by the UN War Crimes Commission, which allowed the formation of military tribunals in 1947 for “devastation, destruction or damage of public or private property not justified by military necessity… murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation or other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population….” War against civilians is a violation of the rules of war. Terrorism by definition is war against civilians.
The situation is a little murky only because al Qaeda is an army without a country, which is a bit of a new animal. In my humble opinion, the most applicable precedent for dealing with al Qaeda and similar organizations is the law pertaining to piracy, because pirates, like al Qaeda, are quasi-military groups engaged in assaults on civilians, the only difference being that the object is not enrichment but ideology -- and historically, even that distinction gets blurry quickly, as is occurring in Afghanistan. Pirates are regarded in international law as “hostis humani generis” (enemies of humanity) and are subject to summary execution.
Pick your precedent, they all point the same way. Terrorists may be killed without trial. Anything we do after we let them live -- anything -- is more merciful than what is demanded by international law, for which reason every word of the left's caterwauling about President Bush's violations of international law are pure, unadulterated bunk.
You might like to read this post, which contains links for further reading.
Posted by: plumb bob at November 20, 2009 10:06 AM (A/GHz)
59
No, it's not just a show trial, CY. Please consider the article I wrote yesterday, in which I defend the notion that the Holder Justice Dept intends to use the trial to air Bush administration interrogation policies. They're saying "the outcome is settled" as political cover, and as Lindsey Graham demonstrated yesterday, it doesn't stand even cursory review.
The first thing KSM's attorneys will do will be to challenge his confession on the basis that it is coerced, which will allow them to subpoena Bush administration documents related to interrogation. Holder knows this. So does Obama. That's the point of the trial.
The first thing KSM's attorneys will do will be to challenge his confession on the basis that it is coerced, which will allow them to subpoena Bush administration documents related to interrogation. Holder knows this. So does Obama. That's the point of the trial.
Posted by: plumb bob at November 20, 2009 10:14 AM (A/GHz)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0291 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0195 seconds, 67 records returned.
Page size 48 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.