What are your thoughts of Obama's/Holder's decision to move 911 mastermind to civilian court in NYC? State, National, International, posted by Pat, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2009 at 4:42 pm
I'd like your opinion on this. If you are a Democrat, I'd especially be interested to know how you can defend this decision by Obama and Eric Holder, AG. All I can see from this is an OJ-type circus that just makes a mockery of our court system. This will also be strung out for years and cost us millions in taxpayer dollars.
Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Why does it need to be defended? What is your solution? Isn't that why we have a judicial system - because most of us, left to our own devices, would dispense our own versions of justice as we see fit, regardless of the circumstances? A process was created and must be followed. We've already acted in response to the attacks as an act of war (Afghanistan) - this is how a civilized society deals with criminals, no matter how heinous the crime. Ignored, our laws don't mean anything.
Posted by John, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2009 at 6:54 pm
I encourage you to read about Military Tribunals vs. Civilian Courts when trying enemy combatants
Here are a few of my thoughts if/when the 911 mastermind and the other terrorists are tried in Civilian Court and in NYC
- The process of discovery can reveal classified information critical to our national defense. Revealing this can be used against the United States by the terrorists
- A civilian court case can be thrown out on minor technicalities and the terrorists can be freed by their shear luck
- When you’re capturing an enemy combatant, you don’t at the same time gather evidence thinking you will be trying this case in civilian court
- The terrorists were obviously never read “Miranda rights” thinking their case would be tried in a military court …so can their case be thrown out in civilian court?
- Any trial in civilian court will be dragged on for years
- Where are you going to get a jury of the terrorist's peers?
- Where can you find impartial jurors in NYC or anywhere in the US
- Jurors, Judges and their entire families will likely receive death threats throughout their lives by radical Islam, just as the Judge has experienced who tried the Blind Sheik in the 1993 Trade Center bombing case
Posted by Alison, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2009 at 7:21 pm
The following is a letter to Barack Obama signed by numerous people, including many surviving family members of 911, who oppose Obama's decision to move this trial to civilian court. Debra Burlingame, sister of the pilot who crashed into the Pentagon is one of the prominent authors of this letter.
On September 11, 2001, the entire world watched as 19 men hijacked four commercial airliners, attacking passengers and killing crew members, and then turned the fully-fueled planes into missiles, flying them into the World Trade Center twin towers, the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. 3,000 of our fellow human beings died in two hours. The nation's commercial aviation system ground to a halt. Lower Manhattan was turned into a war zone, shutting down the New York Stock Exchange for days and causing tens of thousands of residents and workers to be displaced. In nine months, an estimated 50,000 rescue and recovery workers willingly exposed themselves to toxic conditions to dig out the ravaged remains of their fellow citizens buried in 1.8 million tons of twisted steel and concrete.
The American people were rightly outraged by this act of war. Whether the cause was retribution or simple recognition of our common humanity, the words "Never Forget" were invoked in tearful or angry rectitude, defiantly written in the dust of Ground Zero or humbly penned on makeshift memorials erected all across the land. The country was united in its determination that these acts should not go unmarked and unpunished.
Eight long years have passed since that dark and terrible day. Sadly, some have forgotten the promises we made to those whose lives were taken in such a cruel and vicious manner.
We have not forgotten. We are the husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, sons, daughters, sisters, brothers and other family members of the victims of these depraved and barbaric attacks, and we feel a profound obligation to ensure that justice is done on their behalf. It is incomprehensible to us that members of the United States Congress would propose that the same men who today refer to the murder of our loved ones as a "blessed day" and who targeted the United States Capitol for the same kind of destruction that was wrought in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania, should be the beneficiaries of a social compact of which they are not a part, do not recognize, and which they seek to destroy: the United States Constitution.
We adamantly oppose prosecuting the 9/11 conspirators in Article III courts, which would provide them with the very rights that may make it possible for them to escape the justice which they so richly deserve. We believe that military commissions, which have a long and honorable history in this country dating back to the Revolutionary War, are the appropriate legal forum for the individuals who declared war on America. With utter disdain for all norms of decency and humanity, and in defiance of the laws of warfare accepted by all civilized nations, these individuals targeted tens of thousands of civilian non-combatants, brutally killing 3,000 men, women and children, injuring thousands more, and terrorizing millions.
It is morally offensive to offer Constitutional protections to individuals charged with murdering 3,000 individuals, in essence, to jeopardize justice for war crimes victims, in order to make an appeal to the Muslim world. The use of Article III courts after the 1993 World Trade Center attack didn't stop any of the subsequent terrorist plots, including the attack on Khobar Towers, 19 Americans killed, the 1998 East African Embassy bombing, 212 killed, the USS Cole bombing, 17 sailors killed. The attacks of 9/11 were a resounding rebuke to the view that federal courts were an appropriate counterterrorism strategy. Afterward, we didn't send law enforcement personnel to apprehend the perpetrators, we sent the United States military, who captured them and held them pursuant to the 2001 Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF).
The American people do not support the use of our cherished federal courts as a stage by the "mastermind of 9/11" and his co-conspirators to condemn this nation and rally their fellow terrorists the world over. As one New York City police detective, who lost 60 fellow officers on 9/11, told members of the Department of Justice's Detainee Policy Task Force at a meeting last June, "You people are out of touch. You need to hear the locker room conversations of the people who patrol your streets and fight your wars."
On May 21, you stated that military commissions, promulgated by congressional legislation and recently reformed with even greater protections for defendants, are a legal and appropriate forum to try individuals captured pursuant the 2001 AUMF, passed by Congress in response to the attack on America. Nevertheless, you announced a new policy requiring that Al-Qaeda terrorists should be tried in Article III courts "whenever feasible."
We strongly object to the creation of a two-tier system of justice for terrorists in which those responsible for the death of thousands on 9/11 will be treated as common criminals and afforded the kind of platinum due process accorded American citizens, yet members of Al Qaeda who aspire to kill Americans but who do not yet have blood on their hands, will be treated as war criminals. To date, you have offered no explanation or justification for this contradiction, even as you readily acknowledge that the 9/11 conspirators, now designated "unprivileged enemy belligerents," are appropriately accused of war crimes. We believe that this two-tier system, in which war criminals receive more due process protections than would-be war criminals, will be mocked and rejected in the court of world opinion as an ill-conceived contrivance aimed, not at justice, but at the appearance moral authority.
The public has a right to know that prosecuting the 9/11 conspirators in federal courts will result in a plethora of legal and procedural problems that will severely limit or even jeopardize the successful prosecution of their cases. Ordinary criminal trials do not allow for the exigencies associated with combatants captured in war, in which evidence is not collected with CSI-type chain-of-custody standards. None of the 9/11 conspirators were given the Miranda warnings mandated in Article III courts. Prosecutors contend that the lengthy, self-incriminating tutorials Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others gave to CIA interrogators about 9/11 and other terrorist operations--called "pivotal for the war against Al-Qaeda" in a recently released, declassified 2005 CIA report--may be excluded in federal trials. Further, unlike military commissions, all of the 9/11 cases will be vulnerable in federal court to defense motions that their prosecutions violate the Speedy Trial Act. Indeed, the judge presiding in the case of Ahmed Ghailani, accused of participating in the 1998 bombing of the American Embassy in Kenya, killing 212 people, has asked for that issue to be briefed by the defense. Ghailani was indicted in 1998, captured in Pakistan in 2004, and held at Guantanamo Bay until 2009.
Additionally, federal rules risk that classified evidence protected in military commissions would be exposed in criminal trials, revealing intelligence sources and methods and compromising foreign partners, who will be unwilling to join with the United States in future secret or covert operations if doing so will risk exposure in the dangerous and hostile communities where they operate. This poses a clear and present danger to the public. The safety and security of the American people is the President's highest duty.
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal that "the challenges of terrorism trials are overwhelming." Mr. Mukasey, formerly a federal judge in the Southern District of New York, presided over the multi-defendant terrorism prosecution of Sheikh Omar Abel Rahman, the cell that attacked the World Trade Center in 1993 and conspired to attack other New York landmarks. In addition to the evidentiary problems cited above, he expressed concern about courthouse and jail facility security, the need for anonymous jurors to be escorted under armed guard, the enormous costs associated with the use of U.S. marshals necessarily deployed from other jurisdictions, and the danger to the community which, he says, will become a target for homegrown terrorist sympathizers--like the recent Fort Hood shooter--or embedded Al Qaeda cells.
Finally, there is the sickening prospect of men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being brought to the federal courthouse in Lower Manhattan, or the courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, just a few blocks away from the scene of carnage eight years ago, being given a Constitutionally mandated platform upon which he can mock his victims, exult in the suffering of their families, condemn the judge and his own lawyers, and rally his followers to continue jihad against the men and women of the U.S. military, fighting and dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan on behalf of us all.
There is no guarantee that Mr. Mohammed and his co-conspirators will plead guilty, as in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, whose prosecution nevertheless took four years, and who is currently attempting to recant that plea. Their attorneys will be given wide latitude to mount a defense that turns the trial into a shameful circus aimed at vilifying agents of the CIA for alleged acts of "torture," casting the American government and our valiant military as a force of evil instead of a force for good in places of the Muslim world where Al Qaeda and the Taliban are waging a brutal war against them and the local populations. For the families of those who died on September 11, the most obscene aspect of giving Constitutional protections to those who planned the attacks with the intent of inflicting maximum terror on their victims in the last moments of their lives will be the opportunities this affords defense lawyers to cast their clients as victims.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-conspirators are asking to plead guilty, now, before a duly-constituted military commission. Mr. President, the families of their victims have a right to know, why don't you let them?
Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2009 at 10:37 pm
"But others -- including members of the September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, some of whom spoke to reporters by phone on Friday -- said a civilian trial allows for transparency, noting that families of the victims could attend. Their access to a military trial would be more limited, they said.
"Here we can see what's going on," said Valerie Lucznikowska, whose nephew was killed in the attacks. "Everyone in the world can see what's going on."
John Leinung, whose stepson, Paul Battaglia, worked in the north tower, said the United States has a responsibility to "operate under our existing system of laws."
"I think our traditional court system is very capable of convicting guilty people," he said."
How better to demonstrate the terrorists are wrong in their assessment of our values than to demonstrate faith that they will be convicted in our own judicial system?
Unfortunately, we have a few things stacked against us - such as the fact that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in March of '03. Does the fact that a suspect was tortured mean that he should not be subjected to a trial that might be tossed out due to technicalities, such as how information was obtained? I would argue that this illustrates the importance of adhering to our system - from the beginning, rather than taking an alternate route to justice.
Posted by pat, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2009 at 12:12 am
stay cool...you are a living breathing example of why liberals and their ideals place our national security in jeopardy. do us all a favor, and do not run for office. better yet, stay out of the polling booths.
Posted by posture boy, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2009 at 12:33 am
it's amazing that someone who stands up and defends our system of justice is bashed in this country. It's amazing how little regard the right-wing establishment has for our country, it's values, and the institutions that have helped it grow into the most powerful country in the world. You hear nothing but disdain for our justice system by people like Boehner. First it's that you can't trust the government, you can't trust its institutions, and now you can't trust the justice system. Why do you even bother calling yourself Americans? It's descended to a point where it has as much meaning as rooting for a football team. New rule, you can't call yourself an American if you either don't know or can't defend the basic values that make this country what it is. Among those basic values is that every person has a right to a fair trial. This is the only way justice can and will be served in this country. If you can't defend that or support that then you are frankly turning your back on everything that makes you an American. In that case, you are playing into Al Qaeda's hands by rejecting the very values they were attacking in the first place.
As for the justice system not being able to successfully bring to justice terrorists, tell that to Eric Rudolph (olympic park bomber '96) or Timothy McVeigh & Terry Nichols ('95 Oklahoma City) or the perpetrators of the '93 WTC bombing or the plotters of the millenium attacks in 2000 who were captured at the border with explosives.
The problem in this country is not "liberals and their ideals"...that is in fact what has held this country together for 230 years...rather it's rightwingers and their tendency to trample all over the constitution whenever they see fit which has been demonstrated aptly for the past 8 years.
Posted by Jerry, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2009 at 2:42 am
If he had been captured by the U.S. during WW2, I wonder if the Japanese Commander that planned the attack on Pearl Harbor would have been brought to this country for trial, after all, we weren't at war with Japan at the time of the attack but, by Japan's actions, I can't imagine any sane person would deny they had declared war on the U.S....
If I'm not mistaken, Ben Laden had declared war on the U.S. before the Twin Towers went down and this guy was apparently one of his "soldiers"...
So Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in March of '03(if that's true, that's an average of over 5 times per day for 31 days). I could care less if info was obtained that possibly saved Americian lives. He's alive today, which can't be said for some of their "captives". They don't waterboard their "captives" - they whack their heads off...
To whom do we need to convince with this statement: "How better to demonstrate the terrorists are wrong in their assessment of our values than to demonstrate faith that they will be convicted in our own judicial system". I would hope not civilized people and certainly not the terrorists, since they could care less about our judicial system. They have their own "judicial system", which is supreme to them, that contains, among other uncivilized acts, beheadings, car bombs, bombs strapped to one of their own in places occupied by innocent people...
Wars are not won by being polite, they're won by getting down in the ditch with your enemy. Ask a combat veteran...
Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2009 at 7:15 am
Pat, is that why you asked for people's opinions on the topic, so that when they posted something you disagreed with, you could insult them?
Jerry, that's the whole thing, isn't it. What does it say about us if we stoop to the level of how the terrorists operate? As I already mentioned, we've pursued the route of war in response to the attacks. Here we are dealing with specific individuals. You may not care that he was waterboarded 183 times (yes, it's true), but it does make the information he gave and any subsequent information we were able to track down difficult to present in the court.
As for your statement: "To whom do we need to convince with this statement: "How better to demonstrate the terrorists are wrong in their assessment of our values than to demonstrate faith that they will be convicted in our own judicial system". I would hope not civilized people and certainly not the terrorists, since they could care less about our judicial system. They have their own "judicial system", which is supreme to them, that contains, among other uncivilized acts, beheadings, car bombs, bombs strapped to one of their own in places occupied by innocent people...", the people we are accountable to are ourselves, to respect the system that we have put in place. Of course these people have their own system of beheadings, etc. - that's why they're *terrorists.* Let me say that again - that is why they are terrorists. We are a nation of laws and processes, and they need to be followed, or our system becomes irrelevant.
Posted by pat, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2009 at 7:54 am
StayCool...so let me understand. In your world of justice when we are at war and dealing with enemy combatants (i.e. radical Islamists) the following example is how you'd insist that we engage on the battlefield.
An Islamic terrorist lobs a grenade close to a bunker and luckily for the 2 Americans, only one is seriously injured. The other American stands up, aims and successfully kills the radical. The American, knowing that he must defend his actions in civil court, must immediately go to where the radical falls, stretch yellow 'crime scene' tape around the area, photograph the Islamist, put on white gloves to collect fragments of the grenade in hopes that we might find fingerprint evidence of the Islamist, and on and on...
Oh, yes...the American has to collect all this evidence while other Islamists nearby are laughing their asses off because after he collects all this evidence, they're going to surround him with boiling oil in hand ready to have their fun with the him knowing that his government has crippled him on the battlefield.
Back in civilian court, there is another advantage the radical Islamists will have when they are on trial. Remember they are required to be tried with a "jury of their peers." It will not be difficult at all to find a "jury of radical Islamist's peers". That jury could include the likes of Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer...and just take your pick from the Democrat pool.
Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2009 at 8:36 am
Dan, of course the National Review will be critical of the Attorney General's decision. That said, yes, there are some very serious problems that will need to be taken into consideration in having the trial in NY. However, it is the correct thing to do, and the fact that it is difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
Don't trouble yourself with trying to comprehend my assessment of the Attorney General's decision. We are each entitled to our respective interpretations of how the law should be followed, and allowed a forum to express those interpretations freely (though unfortunately not without insult from people who disagree - that's ok, though - I'm happily thick-skinned and not thick-skulled). We can banter all we want, and leave the decision making to those more educated in the process of law.
Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2009 at 8:48 am
Pat, it's impossible to take you seriously when you make statements like "It will not be difficult at all to find a "jury of radical Islamist's peers". That jury could include the likes of Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer...and just take your pick from the Democrat pool."
Posted by pat, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2009 at 10:08 am
ok staycool, since you've described yourself as not being thick-skulled, for sake of debate, what is your response to my comment that our American military must now be able to produce bonafide evidence in civilian court that their force against an enemy was justified in a given confrontation (e.g. injuring or killing an enemy)?
That is how a Civilian trial works...rules of evidence. Perhaps all of our soldiers should also keep test tubes and swabs to collect DNA samples, rolls of 'crime scene' tape, cameras, fingerprint powder, tape recorders.
Of course, I am exaggerating to make a point (just like my earlier "jury of peers" comment), but tell me how on earth there can be a trial of our enemy in Civilian Court which is based upon the rules of evidence? Do you not understand that we as a country cannot defend ourselves adequately if we have to abide by Civilian Court rules?
Do you not realize that NO US President in the past has made this decision regarding an enemy we are at war against?
Posted by Rae, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Food for thought . . .
So, the current war in Afganistan has been going on for what, 9 years? The war in Iraq for 8? In that time, there have been, I believe, only three military tribunals held. Three tribunals for hundreds of prisoners in nine years.
Under the Military Commissions Act Web Link signed by Bush and passed by a Republican held Congress, the "unlawful enemy combatants" (ie. not a member of the Taliban, AlQuaida or official armed forces) at Guantanamo have fewer rights than other prisoners, including domestic and foreign terrorists, held by, and in, the USA.
Under a military tribunal:
- The accused are not allowed access to all the evidence against them.
- The Presiding Officers are authorized to consider secret evidence the accused have no opportunity to refute.
- It is possible for the commission to consider evidence that was extracted through coercive interrogation techniques before the enactment of the Detainee Treatment Act. However, legally the commission is restricted from considering any evidence extracted by torture, as defined by the Department of Defense (and we know how loose that definition is).
- The accused are not permitted a free choice of attorneys, as they can only use military lawyers or those civilian attorneys eligible for the Secret Security Clearance.
- Because the accused are charged as unlawful combatants, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated that an **acquittal on all charges** by the commission is **no guarantee of a release**.
Hmmmmmmm . . .
Without any requirements to provide actual evidence of war activities, why have there only been three tribunals? Why are most of the prisoners being held without any charges against them? Could it be that the military could not produce **any** evidence against them?
America is always the first one to stand up and shout when rights are being stripped from others around the world (eg. Tiananmen Square, South Africa), let alone when our brave men and women are captured and made POWs during conflict, or wander across country borders into, oh say, Iran.
We're supposed to be the good guys, remember? We have a judicial system that, while not perfect, works most of the time. It's obvious the military tribunals, even without having any pressure to provide, for example, evidence, can not do the job they were enacted to perform.
If there is evidence against an "unlawful" or "lawful enemy combatant", we need to charge them, hold a trial, and either punish them or deport them, based on the results of the trial. I believe that our judicial system is more than capable of safe-guarding classified information, as well as bringing those responsible for terrorist acts to trial and punishment. We've done it before, we can do it again.
If there is no evidence against a GITMO prisoner, let them go home. We should have released them as soon as it was determined that there was no evidence to hold them. Yes, I realize they will now, undoubtedly, forever be an enemy of the USA . . . but that was inevitable the moment we decided to imprison, hold indefinitely without charges, and torture them.
It's time to step up and show the world that America practices what it preaches.
Posted by Moderate, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2009 at 3:55 pm
How can any of the terrorist receive a fair trial from NYC? Defense would want a change of venue. Is our AG so dumb that he doesn't know what he is talking about? We will just waste our tax dollars to do this in NYC. These self-confessed terrorists will make the trial into a mockery! Let alone, revealing our secret sources by demanding to know the source of the evidence. The American people are so naive (including current administration) that they are playing our system and make it mockery! It's pathetic that the American people (Stay Cool included) fall into this trap! They have the patience (as demonstrated by the numerous attempts to bomb WTC) and we (Americans) don't! No stomach for any drawn out fight. It's SAD SAD SAD SAD SAD DAY!
Posted by Pete, a resident of the Castlewood neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Am anxiously waiting to hear from Stay Cool on how she believes the Civil Court system, based on the rules of evidence, is suited for captured Islamic radicals in our war against them.
I can see it clearly now. These Islamic radicals will be granted TV interviews with the uber liberal mainstream media, where they will be given unlimited airtime to spew their hatred toward America and other western nations.
Stay Cool, still think this "change" on Obama's part is a good one?
Posted by Jerry, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Question: Do those of you that are so concerned about these terrorists(Ben Laden's soldiers)"rights" believe they will kill you if the opportunity arises???
Bring these terrorists to NYC and the suicide bombers come with them.
No matter how good your police force may be, there is no way to stop them. They're that good...
Ben Laden declared war on the U.S.(I believe that's factual). These guys are his soldiers. Try them in a military court, as you would any soldier that commits an atrocity(Lt. William Calley commited an atrocity and he was tried by the military). This PC crap is going to get this country taken down. I'm not liberal or conservative, I'm simply an average American that can see further than the end of my nose...
If you fight a war to win - you do what's necessary to win. If necessary, you play by the same rules your enemy plays by, but, I'm not sure we(the present administration)wish to win. We seem to be more concerned about what the "world" thinks of us. I could care less what the "world" thinks of me when someone wishes to kill me and my fellow citizens. Who does the "world" run to when they need help? I think we all know...
I honestly don't think many people in this country have the stomach to do what's necessary to win this war against terrorism - and that's sad...
These guys, and their cohorts, will gleefully kill you, and I, at the drop of a hat. With that in mind, I can't understand why some are so concerned about their(these terrorist coming to NYC)"rights". Did they worry about the "rights" of those that they beheaded. I know, we're supposed to be better than them, and we are during time of peace, but as I've said before, you do what's necessary to win a war or pack up your tent, go home and endure their wrath. I would hope we all realize the extent of their wrath...
Bringing these terrorist military soldiers to a civilian court will set a precedent for all time...
Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 15, 2009 at 5:19 am
I see you've been very busy.
Pat wrote, "StayCool now apparently realizes she cannot defend her savior of Obama over his decision to move from military to civil courts. I now declare victory over StayCool."
That is frankly just very, very strange.
Moderate said, "No matter what we may say, Stay Cool or Cholo will never change their stance. They were born without ears for hearing/listening. It quite clear from their blogs. No reasoning with them at all."
While I can't speak for Cholo, I will agree that yes, no matter what "you" say, I will not change my stance, largely due to the utter lack of reason you offer.
Thank you to Rae for your excellent post. It is good to read an intelligent contribution.
The efforts of some people on these boards to create a nice echo chamber for themselves will probably be successful. I haven't had time to visit the boards as much lately and I must say, my state of mind has been much elevated spending more time amongst the living and less with some of the people who frequent these boards.
Since these are unlawful enemy combatants, I suggest we give the remaining 215 each a sidearm and a few rations, and drop them all off in a group in the mountains of Afghanistan. Close Gitmo, stop wasting tax money and court/justice system time, and get back to the wars that Rae says are still going on.
Posted by !, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 15, 2009 at 9:49 am
So...I assume you too are in favor of "arming" our military with tools to gather evidence ... like cameras, test tubes for DNA, 'crime scene' tape to protect the area where the 'crime' occurred, how about a tape measure just in case, perhaps a tape recorder, fingerprint dust and a brush, tweezers so collect hair samples, oh yes...a blacklight to identify blood spatters, speaking of blood spatters don't you have to have sufficient training to read that too...
My gosh, our military are soooo unprepared for this war! They need to be thoroughly trained regarding how to collect evidence!!!
Posted by Rae, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Nov 15, 2009 at 12:29 pm
I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make - oh, I got the condescending tone, it's just the commentary itself that I question.
If you are saying that the hundreds of "unlawful enemy combatants" (ie. those not connected to the Taliban, AlQuaida or enemy armed forces as defined by the Military Commissions Act) swept up in the Middle East were arrested without any evidence, then you're making my point. Why were they arrested? You don't have to have CSU-type evidence gathering skills to be a witness to a crime. And, it's not like the Military Tribunals were even held to any kind of judicial system criteria for evidenciary support - a witness to a crime should have done it.
But these guys were being held without charges for an undefined term. If the Military couldn't even charge them under the loose criteria the Tribunals were established under, then they should have let them go.
Posted by Rae, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Nov 15, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Oh, and by the way for those of you out there that seem to think that calling a poster "she" somehow makes their comments less important than yours . . . it doesn't. That kind of commentary, along with the name-calling and vitriol, only reflect back on who you are.
Me, I am a woman, and proud of it! I guess that means you'll be calling me "he"???
Posted by Patriot, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 15, 2009 at 2:47 pm
It is time to wake up people! Obama has never publicly condemned the attacks on this county on 911. He will not solute the flag. He will not say the pledge of allegiance. He is not even a US citizen. He has never produced a US birth certificate, but a Kenyan birth certificate has been produced. He is a muslim. He is know to have travelled to Pakistan -- This is a documented fact. He is know to have met with people who trained terrorists. There are people who believe he was actually involved in the planning of 911, but there is no proof.
He is doing these things because he wants to destroy America! WAKE UP!
Posted by Sally, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Nov 15, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Folks, our dear president absolutely hates this country and is doing everything within his power to do it. He is either completely in over his head (quite likely) or is doing this on purpose (also quite likely).
Posted by !, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 15, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Why did he win, you ask?
- Obama is a good salesman (actually con artist is more accurate)
- major media were all behind him, never probed, always focused on what he wanted America to "change from" (answer = "Bush") but never did they ask what you wanted to "change to". When a few in the media did ask the "change to" question, he would answer in such vague generalities like change to a better life, better world, etc. and never did the media scratch the surface beyond his empty answers.
- ACORN was a big factor
- the illegal caucus system was a factor...and robbed Hillary of winning a few states (there is still a class action lawsuit on this, I believe)
- many people simply voted against Bush
- many many people are simply easily misled and do not care to understand more about politics or the candidates
- I actually believe that the financial crisis was deliberately triggered and timed by a handful of very very powerful people, especially George Soros (and perhaps Obama himself, with all his mid-eastern connections. Wasn't it 'coincidental' that the crisis hit just as McCain was overtaking Obama in the polls?
there are many other reasons, but I could get myself into trouble here.
My 'hope and change' is that Americans (especially well-intentioned Democrats who love this country) will wake up to the disaster they've placed in the White House. This is the most radical, the most rogue, the most extreme leftist America has ever had as US President. With virtually no checks and balances in the Federal Govt because the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches are all occupied by a majority of leftists. In addition, the major media leans heavily left (thank God for FoxNews and talk radio).
The goal of socialism is communism, stated Lenin. That is where Obama is taking us, if we don't put on the brakes by 2010 and then put this ship in reverse soon.
Posted by Rae, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Nov 16, 2009 at 8:48 am
Hmmmmm . . . and once again a topic on this forum has become just another place for those who hate Obama to chat each other up . . . or, as Stay Cool said earlier, an echo chamber.
It continues to amaze me that it doesn't even seem to matter if an issue is local - somehow the fault is laid at Pres. Obama's door. If nothing else, y'all are certainly creative!
There are so many things in this world, country and my life that I ontinue to be grateful for, I find that my wish for you, in this season of Thanksgiving, is that you find something else besides hate to fill your life and comment on. And if you can't, well, at least you have each other.
Posted by !, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 16, 2009 at 9:14 am
Spare me with your comment that I hate Obama. The real hate is Obama's (and his Czars') toward America. I reject nearly everything he is for because I love America, love the troops, love our freedoms (tho they are on the rapid decline).
Wake up. (Tho there is little chance of that, I realize.)
Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Nov 16, 2009 at 9:59 am
That's what the Obama supporters have to say when they have no response to the truth. They refer to Beck, Rush, etc, as the echo chamber because they hear it all the time, cannot take the fact that the doubts are creeping in on he who promised hope and change.
I have exhibited no hate for Obama. I have intense dislike for most of his policies. This is the same false charge put up against Limbaugh. He wants Obama to fail!! He wants our country to fail! No, he wants the policies this administration is promoting to fail.