Maddow - GOP Terrified - Holder announces KSM trial

[jamsid33]

oh really?  the trial is coming to NY? obama punked u rachel lol

[priapistt]

"it is a done deal, it's happening" LOL "finally being brought to justice"...thats right, ultra-maroon, in Military Court. Odumbo's AG "today announced that KSM will be tried in a military commission at Guantanamo Bay prison"...cbsnews 2011/04/04.

[im4wur2]

Why are conservatives so afraid of al Qaeda rhetoric?

Ultimately, the battle against global terrorism is a battle for hearts and minds and thus values. It is a battle for the moral high ground. If we can't win the battle of ideas (and the expression of values) then how can we hope to win the moral high ground?

[dirtydesertdog]

you have got to be kidding.you think we can talk and change the mind of people who treat dogs better than women.they know what our country is about.they want nothing to do with freedom,educating and letting women run thier own lives.thats exactly what they want to destroy.the only thing they understand is death and thats how we should deal with them.its not just rhetoric buddy.i think were a little past that point dont you think?get past your sept 10 mind set. singing cumbiyah wont fix this one.

[im4wur2]

@dirtydesertdog - This is less about 10 guys in a cave half way around the world, than it is about having the courage to live our values.

[dirtydesertdog]

when your so called "ten guys in a cave" come here and kill innocent people it starts to be about my family and values.we lived our lives while we fought evil in three theaters during WWII.we can do both.now get a hold of your self and buck up.were Americans.

[im4wur2]

@dirtydesertdog - The fact is the US government's use of torture CREATES terrorists. - Who'da thunk?

"Mora: Abu Ghraib & Gitmo Get US Troops Killed" - watch?v=6wkNwjzpuH0

An excerpt from former US Navy Inspector General Mora's testimony before Congress: "First, there are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq... are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo."

[dirtydesertdog]

we can do nothing at all and the terrorist will still come.

[im4wur2]

Until the underlying conditions are addressed, there will continue to be those that are willing to strap on a bomb.

"What motivated the 9/11 hijackers?"

watch?v=BzXkxFXIRV8

[im4wur2]

@dirtydesertdog - The point remains, torture is immoral, counterproductive, contrary to the core principles upon which this country was founded and furthermore the US government's use of torture CREATES more terrorists.

On the issue of torture being counterproductive:

"Senate Torture Hearings (Ali Soufan) 1/2"

watch?v=3jQoM0WvQpU

Would that more people understood the validity of: "An army of principles can penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot." - Thomas Paine

[CheneyWatch1]

"we can do nothing at all and the terrorist will still come. "

You have zero empirical evidence of this claim.

It has never been tried.

You have improperly assessed your "enemy" as simply stark raving crazy. This is a mistake. Your "enemy" may indeed have a demented view of the world, but this is not without cause, reaction, nor source by the U.S. Govt actions and the arrogance of your leaders and some of the loudest voices of the punditry class.

Sorry, effect without cause? no. try again.

[im4wur2]

@dirtydesertdog - By the way, you speak of American values during WW II. - In times when the US was in much greater danger from abroad than we are now; during the Revolutionary war and two world wars, the US didn't rely on torture.

Furthermore, after World War II the US government prosecuted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding prisoners. -Is your position that waterboarding (and more egregious acts) are less criminal because the US government are doing them?

[CheneyWatch1]

"when your so called "ten guys in a cave" come here and kill innocent people"

Sorry, again wrong profile. Most of the "terrorists" we've apprehended, killed, or like, were from privileged classes. But yes, they are radicalized by pointing at the US "Empire" and in return we uphold those images with torture, arrogance, resource monopolies and puppet governments. NO problem...

im4wur2 is right. U.S. Foreign policy, Like Soviet policy, is what they are fighting, not our Pepsi.

[CheneyWatch1]

"while we fought evil in three theaters during WWII.we can do both."

The "evil" fought during WWII is a very different enemy. You do not have a nation state to attack named Germany, Japan, Italy. You do not have the Soviets to fight. This is an overt cousin to the fight on Isms like Communism. You can't win, you can only manage it, minimize it, and reduce the validation factors. Don't Make More.

If you look at the First Intifada and the first stone throwers...they eventually upgraded.

[CheneyWatch1]

"you think we can talk and change the mind of people who treat dogs better than women."

Yes, some. Some folks can change. But it isn't simply about them. It is also about turning middle ground people from allies to enemies or enemies to allies. You can't insult foreign leaders then ask them to help your "war on terror". So get over this "negotiate with terrorists" meme. You aren't being asked to negotiate with Bin Laden. And its "Kumbayah", and I'm not singing.

[CheneyWatch1]

"get past your sept 10 mind set."

THAT is a Sept 10 mindset. My view on this topic is pre and post in ways you aren't even on topic to deal with.

"how we should deal with them.its not just rhetoric buddy."

First, properly identifying "foe" would be good.

Second, proper response instead of Kill Them All is a good start. Fighting isn't always the wisest strategy. We've done wonders by building structures in Afghanistan for the locals. Cooperation that has lasted provided they feel protected.

[CheneyWatch1]

"not just rhetoric"

That goes both ways. "Bring 'em on" is rhetoric.

'They'll greet us as liberators' is just rhetoric. Would have been nice if you could have applied this standard before engaging in war...buddy.

Buddy, perhaps you can tell us why we are in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of Saudi Arabia and Yemen, or even Somalia?

Can you explain Cheney's speech to an energy panel 6 years previous to invading Iraq that lays out premeditation for just such invasion? Nothing to do with terrorism.

[keithyoungberg]

@dirtydesertdog You need to look into the facts before you make claims like that. They may treat their women poorly by our standards, but they certainly don't treat them worse then dogs. I have been there, and you are wrong. They are not all about death and destruction. You can't base your view on them based off of a few terrorists. Bin Laden has a political and religious reason for attacking us... he has told us why.. look it up. There is no logical reason for him to lie about that.

[ars21689]

They weren't read their miranda rights when they were captured so technically nothing they have said is admissable in a civilian trial, but what I don't understand is they claim they're trying to protect the judicial system's credibility but then holder tells a reporter basically even if they were acquitted they would be convicted so what's the point of even going through with this

[CheneyWatch1]

"but then holder tells a reporter basically even if they were acquitted they would be convicted"

Where did he say that?

All I've heard him tell people is that even if he is not convicted he won't be released. He would still be listed as a danger and could be detained.

[ars21689]

Right even if they're found not guilty of the charges they will still be detained. How is that any different from what I said. I didn't claim to be quoting holder verbatim. And if thats the case then whats the point of the trial. It wouldn't help the U.S.'s image around the world to detain people who had been acquitted of the charges they were being held on.

[CheneyWatch1]

"Right even if they're found not guilty of the charges they will still be detained. "

That isn't the same thing as:

"even if they were acquitted (found not guilty) they would be convicted (found guilty)".

The point of a trial would be to weigh evidence against accusation for criminal charges. In law of war, you don't have to be guilty of a crime to be held due to continued hostilities and the potential of the detainee returning to the battle field. It is not a conviction.

[CheneyWatch1]

The argument used is that a person may be not guilty of the accused crime, but because they are still members of a group or country that is engaged in active armed conflict with detaining country they can be held till the end of hostilities.

I agree that this is a really bad road to walk, but they are legally entitled to do so. So long as they are held as POWs with all those legal protections, then the government would be acting in a legal, although abhorrent, manner.

[CheneyWatch1]

A conviction is a specific legal action. That is the only term I was point to. Acquittal and Conviction are antipodal components. Investigate post-acquittal detention and you'll find lots of precedent for detention despite being found not guilty of a crime.

[CheneyWatch1]

And...last,..these are questions that many of the best legal scholars are debating with the desire to protect civil liberties and the value that innocent people need not be inconvenienced much less incarcerated. But this is also the real world and there are dangerous people who elude conviction. It is quite valuable to examine this issue and be clear on our values.

[iamavet]

Why have a trial?

KSM said he was guilty ,at a military trial before Holder stopped it.

Holder said he was guilty and will not let KSM go-no matter what happens.

Obama said KSM was guilty.

So if I was on a jury, I must conclude KSM is guilty even before the trial.

The proper thing to happen is KSM accidentally commit suicide in his jail cell.

[CheneyWatch1]

"Why have a trial?"

Because it makes it official. Confession all day don't mean conviction.

Further, KSM and the other 4 "will only plea guilty if they get the death penalty".

He said this before Holder was even attorney general.

This can be produced as evidence at best.

Mayors, Governors, and Prosecutors frequently state that a suspect is guilty before a trial and yet juries still convict and the conviction upheld.

[ClassicFIHD]

Sorry, but if the Judge makes a public comment about the suspects being guilty before or during a trial, that is in FACT, going to be a mistrial. And since both the top two Law Enforcers have both publically said KSM is guilty, legally it should never get to a jury.

[CheneyWatch1]

"Sorry, but if the Judge makes a public comment about the suspects being guilty before or during a trial"

The Prosecutor isn't the Judge. Eric Holder isn't a judge, nor is Obama.

No Judge has made a comment about these suspects. So ...what are you talking about?

"Top Law Enforcers" make comments about the guilt of suspects all the time and still get convictions.

Prosecutors stand in front of a jury from the beginning of a case and state that the suspect is guilty. This isn't shocking at all.

[ClassicFIHD]

@CheneyWatch1, What is it with you? It's the Prosecutors job to present the case as the government sees it. He's SUPPOSED to make a case against the accused. It's the Judges job to be impartial. That's why I said "IF". See the word "IF" in what I said, which would not be impartial if the Judge made a comment he tought the accused was guilty. FYI, Holder out ranks the Judge, Obama out ranks Holder in the legal system. So if the Judges Boss and the Boss's Boss both said the accused is guilty

[CheneyWatch1]

"So if I was on a jury, I must conclude KSM is guilty even before the trial."

Have you ever served on a criminal jury?

It doesn't sound like you have.

Prosecutors start their very case by stating that a suspect is guilty of the crime. This is why they are there, because they and the grand jury believe this individual committed a crime. They concluded his guilt before the jury heard a word. But the jury still remains as one of the last checks. The last would be the court of appeals and SCOTUS.

[HeyNonyNonymous]

If Israel can trial Eichmann, USA can prosecute KSM. Can you really believe a NYC jury will let this man go?