Bush Administration Target in 9/11 Trial?

[Jamisjockey]

The majority of voters elected him.  He can make a jackass of himself.  All we can do is take the tools away from him at each subsequent election, and watch the fireworks.

[De Selby]

If it isn't an issue, if it doesn't matter, then why not keep them in military courts where they belong?  Why this farce of pretending that they're criminals who need a civilian trial, endangering and undermining the United States in the process? 

If it's no issue, why do you persist in your fallacy of claiming that it must be criminal courts or no justice at all?

I think you misinterpreted me: I don't think it matters whether they go to military courts or civilian courts, so long as there's a reasonable process for assessing guilt. 

I was pointing out that your arguments about the ills that would befall America from trying terrorists apply to a military trial just as much as a civilian court.  Military courts have the same basic protections and are subject to constitutional standards of justice.

The entire problem with Gitmo in the first place was the pretense that neither military courts nor civilian courts could hear these cases.

[longeyes]

When you're a civilian lawyer the whole world looks like a law case. 

That explains a lot about what America's become.  We have an entire generation of the privileged who went to law school and consider themselves the new priesthood in America.  In their own way they are another mullah class.  America's a nation built on laws that has now become the plaything of lawyers; everything's an opportunity to litigate.  That's how it looks from here.

Lawyers have been losing wars for us for the last half-century.

[De Selby]

When you're a civilian lawyer the whole world looks like a law case. 

That explains a lot about what America's become.  We have an entire generation of the privileged who went to law school and consider themselves the new priesthood in America.  In their own way they are another mullah class.  America's a nation built on laws that has now become the plaything of lawyers; everything's an opportunity to litigate.  That's how it looks from here.

Lawyers have been losing wars for us for the last half-century.

I read this and I see:  "Lawyers are bad, therefore, the Government should be able to arrest, torture, and kill people without proving they committed a crime."

Not convinced.

[Monkeyleg]

Shooting student, you're assuming that people were tortured. Further, it seems you're taking the position that arresting enemy combatants is proper in war and that killing enemy combatants is wrong.

You're not really Nancy Pelosi, are you? Between your arguments on health care, Gitmo, the war on terror, and other issues, you make Hillary Clinton look like a centrist.

[MicroBalrog]

Lawyers have been losing wars for us for the last half-century.

Losing wars? What?

Let's look at America's wars in the last 58 years.

Korean War:

American victory. Enemy military casualties exceed coalition casualties by at least 400,000.

Vietnam War:

America loses. Enemy military casualties exceed coalition casualties by 800,000.

Iraq War I:

American victory. Enemy casualties comprise 20,000 to 35,000, coalition casualties comprise 375 men and women.

Iraq War II:

US and allied forces crush the Iraqi Army (despite Iraqi military superiority in-theater, inflicting 30,000 casualties, whereas US and allied forces suffered 172 casualties. The post-invasion insurgency conflict is yet unresolved, but going extremely well for America. Afghanistan remains unresolved.

America's system, with legal and civilian control of the military, where the military is subject to limits on how they wage war, is not only the most moral system in the word, it's also the most capable.

In practically every conflict, when an enemy that knows no limit to its methods of warfare runs up against America or another Western combatant, the enemy in question breaks and runs away like the pile of wimps they really are. The only exception known is Vietnam.

[longeyes]

No one argues our military superiority, but the kill and casualty ratios are not the final measure of who won or lost.  My point is that, increasingly, over the last half century, we have been turning military conflicts into legal actions.  Perhaps that's inevitable in civilized societies; how well it works when you are fighting an uncivilized one remains to be seen.

We have a huge and magnificent war machine, no doubt about that, but it's clear that we are basically unwilling to unleash anything close to its full power.  We fight around the margins, often well throttled-back, and I'll leave it to you to explain why.  Perhaps we are too "evolved" for our own good...

[longeyes]

My remarks about the KSM trial had to do with the bigger agenda.  It's hard to fight the kinds of wars we're engaged in with no effective intelligence capability and when everyone you engage has the de facto rights of American citizens.

Some believe this is a sign of a higher and nobler moral state; others think there's a concerted effort to render a great nation impotent.  You decide.

[MicroBalrog]

No one argues our military superiority, but the kill and casualty ratios are not the final measure of who won or lost.  My point is that, increasingly, over the last half century, we have been turning military conflicts into legal actions.  Perhaps that's inevitable in civilized societies; how well it works when you are fighting an uncivilized one remains to be seen.

We have a huge and magnificent war machine, no doubt about that, but it's clear that we are basically unwilling to unleash anything close to its full power.  We fight around the margins, often well throttled-back, and I'll leave it to you to explain why.  Perhaps we are too "evolved" for our own good...

I don't understand.

Do you believe the US military should be encouraged to fight without any kind of discrimination between combatants and non-combatants, to abandon the rules of war that it took decades to develop? Just frag everything that moves? Surely not.

Then it is up to the civilian authorities to control and design the rules under which the military functions.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Oy!  Once again with the false choice fallacies.  There are more choices out there besides "abandoning the rules of war" or giving up civilian control of the military and giving these people civilian trials.  

There are ways to do justice in war that DO NOT INVOLVE CIVILIAN COURTS!!!!!1!1111

[Jamisjockey]

I vehemently oppose waterboarding, torture, and most everything involved in how the Bush administration has operated with captured terrorists. 
However, today, I heard an argument that made alot of sense about trying the 9/11 conspirators in civilian court:
Some Senators were grilling Holder.  One asked if they weren't afforded the protections of the US justice system when they were captured, why would they be tried under the US Justice system.  They were never read Miranda rights. 
Military tribunals are legal, moral, and should be used in this case. 
These people should be treated as POW's who have commited war crimes. 
They should not be tried in Civilian court.
Those are my opinions.
Mark my words, this is my prediction:
This Kangaroo Court will become all about waterboarding, and closing Gitmo.  Obama couldn't get Congress to play ball, so he's going to use the trials to guilt them into closing Gitmo.  The media attention will be enormous, especially the media attention on the Bush Administration policies.  There may even be prosecutions of key Bush Administration officials. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Some Senators were grilling Holder.  One asked if they weren't afforded the protections of the US justice system when they were captured, why would they be tried under the US Justice system.  They were never read Miranda rights. 

That was Lindsey Graham, I believe, proving that even RINO's have some value here and there.

[longeyes]

Do you believe the US military should be encouraged to fight without any kind of discrimination between combatants and non-combatants, to abandon the rules of war that it took decades to develop? Just frag everything that moves? Surely not.

The reality is that when it's expedient those "rules of war" are ignored in practice.  There's plenty of collateral damage in modern war, especially when you consider the ripple effect of engagements.

But your deeper question goes to the issue of combatants and non-combatants.  I know of no armed force that does not in the end depend completely for its efficacy and very survival on "non-combatants."  The wars being fought today are more often than not about race, culture, and religion, and under those blanket rubrics no one is safe and no one is outside the fight.

[MicroBalrog]

The reality is that though the rules are sometimes ignored in practice, even with the effect of such 'practicality' factored in, modern militaries are far more concerned about non-combatants. The Israeli military - far from being perfect in this respect! - commenced Operation Cast Lead with over 100,000 phone calls to Palestinian families, warning them of the operation. The US military does not practice today the mass-bombing tactics of 1944.

Surely, police sometimes also ignore regulations to go after a suspect, but having these regulations is A Good Thing [tm].

Rules do not exist because we believe introducing them will force people to become morally perfect, they exist because the goal is to improve behavior.

[longeyes]

Yes, but you haven't dealt with my real point, which is that the distinction between combatants and non-combatants is, in the end, a fiction.  It may be a noble fiction, but it's still a fiction.  Societies clash, not just armies.  Military personnel do not just spring up out of the ground, without mothers, fathers, educators, politicians, and entire frameworks of values and guiding concepts.  If the populace does not support a war directly, it supports it by inaction.

[longeyes]

We don't practice mass-bombing any more because--I'm tempted to say right now--we don't have to.  Other combatant forces aren't as discriminating.

I wasn't aware of Operation Cast Lead; I'm sure many innocent Palestinian families with no fell intent were grateful for that timely heads-up.

[MicroBalrog]

Societies clash, true.

But some people are more important to a fight than others. When Israel defeated Egypt in 1973, we did not bomb Cairo nor did we blow up the Aswan Dam, though no doubt we could have. And yet, by defeating the Egyptian military, we secured a lasting peace with Egypt which exists to this very day, for 36 years now.

The rules exist for a variety of reasons. They are not merely the creation of fancy.

[longeyes]

Well, congratulations on 36 great years.

And enjoy.

Hey, I'm on your side.  But what you did to buy time doesn't necessarily prove the wisdom of your policies.

[MicroBalrog]

Israel is today markedly safer, in real terms - in terms of how likely I am to be killed by a terrorist or foreign soldier - than it ever was before. We are at peace with Jordan and Egypt, and our militaries work together to combat terrorism. The Palestinians are restrained from attacking Israel by high walls and military units, and they are only capable of lobbing their rockets, and attacking settlers who live inside Palestinian territory.

I beileve that within the next ten to twenty years Israel will be forced, painfully so, to re-evaluate the role of the military-industrial complex in its society.

[roo_ster]

That was Lindsey Graham, I believe, proving that even RINO's have some value here and there.

Check it out on youtube or CSPAN.

McCain's mini-me killed, skinned, and ate Holder's still-beating heart...rhetorically speaking.

I didn't think LG had it in him.

[RocketMan]

I just watched two different versions of that exchange on Youtube, the major difference between them being the length.
Graham made Holder look absolutely clueless about what he has done, and the possible outcomes of his move.

[De Selby]

Oy!  Once again with the false choice fallacies.  There are more choices out there besides "abandoning the rules of war" or giving up civilian control of the military and giving these people civilian trials.  

There are ways to do justice in war that DO NOT INVOLVE CIVILIAN COURTS!!!!!1!1111

Yes, but there is no way to do justice to individuals without providing a fair assessment of individual guilt or innocence.  A secret executive decision resulting in a secret executive punishment of potentially life in prison or death is no way to do justice.

[dogmush]

A secret executive decision resulting in a secret executive punishment of potentially life in prison or death is no way to do justice.

But noone here is suggesting that, so what relevence does that comment hold?

[MicroBalrog]

Yes, in a military court/tribunal.  Unlawful combatants have no business being tried in civil courts.

Do you believe that a confession forced out of a man with torture is valid in any way?

[Gewehr98]

Do you believe that a confession forced out of a man with torture is valid in any way?

Give me just a few minutes with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and I'll have your answer.