Hosting Terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: The New Growth Industry
by Lurita DoanLawmakers in New York and Illinois were quick to recognize that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s trial offered a new opportunity to secure billions of additional taxpayer funds.
Both states are reeling from the combined effect of economic slowdown and years of profligate spending on government, grown far beyond what the tax base will support. Thanks to President Obama’s decision to transfer terrorists from GITMO to U.S. soil, both states, and the city of New York, are going to be paid almost $3 billion dollars to secure, transport, administer, house, and contend with the requirements associated with having these terrorists in the United States.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the four other terrorists and all Americans associated with the trial, will require rigorous, differentiated security measures: twenty-four hour a day surveillance, transportation, housing and judicial security. Certainly, New York will be required to raise its threat level to better prepare and respond to the new threat of sympathetic jihadists using the trial, as a showpiece of their own, to make a violent, retaliatory public statement.
Federal security and law enforcement agencies, such as DHS, FBI and US Marshals will be working round the clock to provide the appropriate security, but will be unable to do all of the work required. New York, state and city, law enforcement officers will be required to share the burden, and will expect compensation from the federal government to provide this level of support. Heavily-unionized, public employees in both states, are about to receive the most coveted of all Labor Union prizes, unlimited overtime that extends for years.
Bringing KSM to trial will be hugely expensive and will essentially represent a federalization of much of the New York state and city law enforcement and public services for the 5+ years that the trial process is likely to run.
In fact, Senator Schumer immediately alerted Attorney General, Eric Holder, that New York would require federal subsidies, lots of federal subsidies, to host the KSM circus, to cover the huge amounts of overtime and additional personnel required. Schumer received an open-ended commitment from President Obama’s point man, while Holder was under oath, that the feds would cover the costs associated with the KSM trial in New York.
Senator Schumer’s entrepreneurial spirit emerged quickly; he requested an immediate down payment of $75 Million to get things rolling. Those costs will likely grow exponentially, as overtime pay and other infrastructure requirements start to kick in during the planning before the KSM trial begins. Schumer’s down payment request almost equals the entire, annual operating budget of GITMO.
New York City’s finest, are the largest city police force in the U.S., with approximately 40,000 policemen, but that won’t be nearly enough. And, remember, firemen, paramedics, ambulance drivers, subway security will also be affected with more rigorous requirements. Overtime for everyone! Overtime requirements may please union leaders, since compensation negotiations will undoubtedly ensue, but this requirement comes at a time when federal, state and local law enforcement budgets are already strained.
Unbeknownst to most Americans, the Federal Protective Service (FPS), currently a part of ICE, within the Department of Homeland Security, is tasked with securing federal buildings. They will also be racking up overtime. Of course, FPS comes with its own problems. Since joining the Department of Homeland Security five years ago, FPS has managed to incur over a half a billion dollars deficit in their spending. So, before more can be done with FPS and federal buildings, the U.S. government will likely have to settle the outstanding indebtedness of FPS.
Security, federal, state, and local facilities with the necessary upgrades, as well as costs, from changes in procedural requirements, will end up costing the American taxpayer upwards of $3Billion when the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is finally done. By contrast, the cost of a military trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, using the existing infrastructure, procedures and security of GITMO would cost taxpayers one-one-hundredth (1/100) of what our country will spend for the next three to five years to pander to the Attorney General’s need for a big stage and host a trial in NYC.
Illinois lawmakers also see housing terrorists as an opportunity for economic growth and is anxious to secure additional taxpayer revenues to federalize an abandoned prison, that they hope will soon house other terrorists transported from GITMO. Senator Dick Durbin eagerly offered Illinois as the ideal location to house the remaining prisoners from Guantanamo, and tap the taxpayers for the $1 billion in federal money that it will require.
Senator Durbin shows little concern for what is best for the country nor much concern about the potential national dangers of housing terrorists on U.S. soil. Instead, he is focused on the federal funds that will flow into Illinois. I know, from direct experience, that Durbin has a history of pressuring government officials to push funding to his state, regardless of the merits of the project.
Durbin and Illinois Governor, Pat Quinn, claim the $85+ million dollar, Thomson prison scheme would create about 3,000 jobs at the prison and in the surrounding communities. Undoubtedly prisons generate jobs, but the job creation numbers appear to be inflated. Blagojevich built the Thomson Correctional Facility prison, which is now empty, with the empty promise that he was going to bring jobs to the state, which is exactly the same empty promise that Durbin advanced when he convinced small businesses to move out of their business locations in order to build a new courthouse, just 60 miles down the road in Rockford, IL. Now, Senator Durbin sees housing terrorists in Illinois as a way to finally make good on these failed promises of the past.
State and local government budgets across the nation are strained, but surely there are better business opportunities to help spur development than using terrorists as an economic engine?
Moreover, with the nation running unsustainable deficits, why would our national leaders choose a solution that is not only fraught with dangerous complications but is, undoubtedly, the most costly solution possible?
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
142 Comments
regarding public civilian trials:
we did it to jose padilla (dirty bomber), we did it to richard reid (shoe bomber), we did it to Ramzi Ahmed Yousef who hit the twin towers in 1993, we did it to the militia nutso who bombed the aflfred p. hurrah building in KC…
PLEASE. SOMEONE.
explain to me how this is any different.
and money NYC nor America has to blow… but remember
it is ok to use tax dollars to suck the brain out an unborn baby but KSM has rights and should not have been waterboarded
ask your congressmen about that …..
good day !!
"Security, federal, state, and local facilities with the necessary upgrades, as well as costs, from changes in procedural requirements, will end up costing the American taxpayer upwards of $3Billion when the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is finally done"
Lurita Doan: citation please? why $3BILLION in upgrades when we have already tried Ramzi Ahmed Yousef who hit the twin towers in 1993 using the SAME METHODS and processes in place now?
THAT MAKES NO SENSE. PLEASE EXPLAIN.
Well if the new Obama Afghanistan rumors are true KSM trial will be the worst of our worries.
An Afghan source in Kabul reports that U.S. Ambassador in Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry is holding secret talks with Taliban elements headed by the movement's foreign minister, Ahmad Mutawakil, at a secret location in Kabul. According to the source, the U.S. has offered the Taliban control of the Kandahar, Helmand, Oruzgan, Kunar and Nuristan provinces in return for a halt to the Taliban missile attacks on U.S. bases.
http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/2218...
so KSM was caught here in America ? now I get it !
I know how we can save the taxpayers millions of dollars and the families of the 911 victims alot of justified anger and disgrace. It would cost less than 25 dollars and take less then 5 minutes. It's called a rope!!!!
This individual is not a U.S. citizen, and was not captured in the U.S. (he was captured in Rawalpandi, Pakistan) The Constitution does not extend to non-citizens with regards to this matter. Therefor, there is no reason to try him in a civilian court because he is not a civilian(a non-military citizen) of the U.S.
Simple enough for ya?
Ramzi Ahmed Yousef bombed the WTC in 1993, and was arrested in 1995 in Islamabad, Pakistan by the Pakistani government. He was extradited to the united states, tried in a civilian court in NYC, and is serving a life sentence in a civilian supermax prison in colorado.
AGAIN. PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THIS IS ANY DIFFERENT
Ramzi Ahmed Yousef bombed the WTC in 1993, and was arrested in 1995 in Islamabad, Pakistan by the Pakistani government. He was extradited to the United States, tried in a civilian court in NYC, and is serving a life sentence in a civilian supermax prison in Colorado. How is his case any different exactly? Answer: it's not.
"the Constitution does not extend to non-citizens with regards to this matter."
oh yes, it most certainly does. if you are extradited to stand trial in the US, it most CERTAINLY does. Please cite specifically in the Constitution where it would not.
"KSM has rights and should not have been waterboarded"
that is absolutely correct. we are, after all, a nation of laws. should we blindly discard honor, integrity, and justice for vengeance, convenience, and expediency as it suits us?
no. we are a better people than that.
WE should ALL unequivocally trust THEM. Remember, they are from the Government, and they are always there to help. They always have our best interests at heart, no matter what the cost to US, and future generations….
I already hate myself for responding, but just to set the stage for those who haven't read the rest of your responses to reason, here goes:
KSM was caught as a result of an intelligence mission in another country for waging war against us. He was never provided the Constitutional protections required and was held as an enemy combatant under military conditions where he was subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. Spare us the torture speech.
Sen Graham pointedly asked AG Holder a couple of days ago if this country had ever tried a person in civilian court having been captured in another country for committing an act of war against the U.S. AG Holder would not answer the Senator's question. Sen. Graham did, however. Never. All your examples were handled by U.S. law enforcement agencies and adhered to Constitutional and legal standards for prosecution.
OK,scott_z. Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of BS.
How can this be a "FAIR" Trial when your god Obama & Holder already pronounced they will be convicted and sentenced to death before any trial began ?? (Let's give them a trial…… before we hang them………) Scott Z….You are becoming an enemy to true Americans and your Liberalism is showing your sheer STUPIDITY.. Do you even KNOW who Obama's CZARS are ??? Do you even know recent history ?? Can you distinguish between Good and Evil ?? Have you sided with the Devil ?? Have you studied WWII, how "OBAMA style Diplomacy" CAUSED WWII.. If you are with Obama you are my ENEMY !!!!!
They committed these crimes in the US. Chain of evidence . Miranda rights , etc….. War is HELL, Grow up and Wake Up……..
Obama's Diplomacy: SURRENDER TO EVERYONE……… Obama, FIRST CLASS TRAITOR……….>
KSM was given miranda rights upon landing in NYC in protective custody, just as Ramzi Ahmed Yousef who bombed the WTC earler was in 1995.
again, Yousef was given a civilian trial in NYC, was convicted and received a life sentence, and is serving it out in a civilian supermax prison in colorado.
(KSM is actually Yousef's uncle, believe it or not.)
Man, Scott- where were you earlier in the ACORN thread? I thought you LIKED it when we talked about ACORN- but I guess that being a "Nation of Laws" doesn't suit your purpose when it comes to your favorite organization, but I digress.
OK, so let me ask you what purpose it serves to bring KSM here instead of bringing him up in front of the same military tribunals that his countrymen, co-conspiritors, and lackeys are being faced with.
After all, a nation of laws would require equal protection, would it not? And if so, then your outcry is misplaced as Obama has allowed all the other poor, misguilded enemy combatants to languish and face the wrath of no justice.
"so let me ask you what purpose it serves to bring KSM here instead of bringing him up in front of the same military tribunals that his countrymen, co-conspiritors, and lackeys are being faced with."
its called the Constitution of the United States of America.
Go have a read. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2, in partiicular.
"waging war against us."
war against KSM or AQ was never declared by congress. the Constitution is a bit of a stickler about that point.
"Sen Graham pointedly asked AG Holder a couple of days ago if this country had ever tried a person in civilian court having been captured in another country for committing an act of war against the U.S. AG Holder would not answer the Senator's question. Sen. Graham did, however. Never."
senator Grahm would be wholly incorrect. Ramzi Ahmed Yousef bombed the WTC in 1993, and was arrested in 1995 in Islamabad, Pakistan by the Pakistani government. He was extradited to the United States, tried in a civilian court in NYC, and is serving a life sentence in a civilian supermax prison in Colorado. How is his case any different exactly? Answer: it's not.
Scott, all your false analogies are proving is your own ignorance of the law. Khalid was captured by the military, as an enemy combatant, and held in a military prison. He was not captured by law enforcement.
Of the examples you provided, Jose Padilla was a U.S. citizen, and was captured by law enforcement officials, Reid was captured mid-flight by civilians which would probably amount to a citizens arrest, Yousef was also captured by State law enforcement officials.
If all your going to do is present intellectually dishonest arguments, then do us all a favor, and at least say so, so next time we can simply ignore you instead of having to correct your flawed logic yet again.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime-
That one? I still fail to see how this would not apply to each and every terrorist that we have delt with. Now, I know that you spend a lot of your time as a constitutional attny, but which state was he found in? Yeah, broadening your definition of state to mean "world wide" sure does a lot to help your arguement.
So, as an enemy combatant captured out of the country on a field of battle, you still don't think he should be tried by a military tribunal?
"how "OBAMA style Diplomacy" CAUSED WWII.."
bringing terrorists to justice in a court of law caused WWII?
yikes!
[...] Originally posted here: Big Government » Blog Archive » Hosting Terrorist Khalid Sheikh … [...]
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/3184.html
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, on March 1, 2003, by the Pakistani ISI,
Section 2, clause 2 relates to extradition of a person from State to State and has no bearing on a prisoner of war brought to the US by US forces.
Why are you trying to make the argument for trying this known killer in civilian courts?
With what Holder is going to fully spend before this show is done would be 100 times what it would cost for a military trial. Does that seem like a fair deal to you?
"Why are you so despertly trying to make the argument for trying this known killer in civilian courts? "
because, it is, the law (my prior mistakes notwithstanding)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/3184.html
Which treaty exists between the US and Al Qaeda again? And that hardly looks like Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2, but it is immaterial.
And just so you know, I personally think it is bad policy to try him like this, I think it showed terrible judgement on the part of BHO to announce a conviction before the trial, and it is pretty well known that the intent of having this out in US court is only to serve to allow Al Qaeda both a mouthpiece as well as an option to dodge conviction.
If there is one thing that BHO knows, its that the legal system lets criminals go free and this would do a lot for his standing in the Muslim world to have a trial and release these goons. I just wonder if Mr. Ayres helped concoct this sham.
the intellectual gyrations going on here are amazing…
Particularly Obama apologist Mr Z. Whatever legalistic contortions one can come up with belays the prescient fact- that trying these men in the US is a political decision; Military tribunals would have sufficed. But The Left wants it's show trials, it wants to have it's pound of flesh for the perceived crimes of Mr Bush- and particularly Mr Cheney.
It's about hate, really. Hatred of the two aformentioned gentlemen, of US policy, of eight years of not having their way, you name it.
Justice is an obeserver in this charade…
"Which treaty exists between the US and Al Qaeda again?"
we only needed the one between the US and Pakistan to get him here.
"t showed terrible judgement on the part of BHO to announce a conviction before the trial"
KSM has openly admitted guilt.
Because said person is acting head of an organization that is currently engaged in prolonged combat with our troops overseas?
My money is still on letting our military have first crack at dealing with him- because your above law could (and should if I read you correctly) apply to each and every single enemy combatant. That would be equal protection under the law. However, what we have done is insure inequality in serving justice by cherry picking what we both know to be the head of the serpent.
that being the case, why was the trip to NY necessary?
Explain to me why Americans should rush to defend someone who attacked innocent people for no other reason than the deliberate intention to kill Americans.
Discard honor, integrity and justice for vengeance?? Really?? Where is the honor, integrity and justice in planning the hijacking of a plane and flying it into a building full of innocent people??
What about the victims and thier families whose lives were torn apart by this lunatic? What message are we sending other terrorists groups? This man wants us and you dead simply because we are Americans(you are American aren't you?) and you expect us to worry about his rights?? I don't think so!!!
There is one fundamental difference between Mohammed and Yousef. Yousef was aprehended by a joint effort between the ISI and Us Agents, which would put him in custody of law enforcement officials since US law enforcement was involved. As far as I can tell, US agents were present at the time of his capture. In the case of KSM, there was no indication that any U.S. officials were present at the time of his capture when the ISI caught him.
The ISI itself is more of a military operations organization that deals with covert operations etc, anyone it captures can be labeled enemy combatants. Moreover, Pakistan, does not adhere to our U.S. constitution and does not have to mirandize anyone they arrest. At that point, they were free to hand him over to our military without getting law enforcement involved. Therefore, there is no obligation on our part to try KSM in a civilian court.
"My money is still on letting our military have first crack at dealing with him"
that is convenient, isn't it? but again. there was no formal declaration of war against AQ or KSM (that would be impossible, anyway- you declare war against nation states). so you can't do that, no matter how much you **Want** to.
"However, what we have done is insure inequality in serving justice by cherry picking what we both know to be the head of the serpent."
just like how we brought down organized crime, the mafia, and gangs.
to enter a plea and receive punishment under US law.
it's called a trial.
Ahhh- so we absolutely CANNOT leave all those OTHER detainees without their day in US court- Gotcha. Can you please explain to me why THEY are being tried by Military Tribunals?
"why Americans should rush to defend someone who attacked innocent people "
i rush to defend only the honor, integrity, and justice as afforded by US law and the Constitution… that you have abandoned with such convenience and disgrace in your post above.
because a big reason Obama won the election was the anti-Bush vote the democrats are hoping to stir up this vote again by having the terrorist trials in NYC, and try to capture the electoral success they had with the anti-bush vote again in 2010 and 2012
"US agents were present at the time of his capture."
can you explain why that would make any difference? legally speaking, i mean.
just because US agents were present, does not mean they had the ability to arrest KSM on foreign soil. A formal extradition would still have to have been made to release KSM to US Custody.
In light of his violent nature towards the citizens of this country, and in light of his admitted guilt, don't you think that a judgement in absentia would have been a wiser decision? Unless, of course, you want to see a media circus as he changes please and uses the court as his personal bully pulpet.
Also, putting KSM in a civilian court room would probably involve revealing top secret information and tactics on how we deal with terrorist threats. Definetly not a good idea considering were still trying to deal with this particular Organization. And as we have no legal obligation to try him in a civilian court, then I see no reason to even consider it.
I'm not disputing your previous examples as individuals that the court system was or wasn't able to handle. Just trying to point out how extremely counter productive it would turn out to be.
this brings us full circle to my original post.
we handled the 1st WTC bomber arrested in pakistan in civ court and civ prison, the shoe bomber, the dirty bomber, the KC bomber.
and they all received proper justice. YET AGAIN, HOW IS KSM DIFFERENT.
So… you think that San Diego ACORN should be prosecuited to the fullest extent of the law for carelessly disposing of 20,000 documents that contain vast amounts of personal information, mostly belonging to the "little guy"?
I see that we have somehow abandoned principals by asking for a closer LOOK at the rules that brought this man to our shores, but your silence on this other matter entirely does not suprise me.
Don't play sanctimonious with us, Scott. Your partisan opinions and way of conducting your posts reveals your own motives and objectives.
that's the same argument put forth in 1995 for Yousef's trial. and a media circus. and this or that…
"extremely counter productive it would turn out to be"
this is about justice, not productivity.
again with acorn. everything is about acorn, isn't it? even the trial of KSM. that's a bit nutters, to be honest.
"asking for a closer LOOK at the rules that brought this man to our shores, but your silence on this other matter entirely does not suprise me"
??? dunno what you are talking about there. he was arrested by pakistani police in pakistan and extradited to the US. mirandized in NYC upon landing, just like the 1st WTC bomber Yosef, who was tried in civilian court in NYC convicted and serving a life term in colorado.
"Your partisan opinions and way of conducting your posts reveals your own motives and objectives. "
the objective truth.
". Can you please explain to me why THEY are being tried by Military Tribunals? "
who exactly? it's clearly a case by case basis. and when examining KSM's case, a military tribunal clearly violates precedent in (if not the letter of) American law.
The US military wasn't there for the capture in either situation. Were talking Law enforcement protocol here. Us law enforcement agents were present for Yousef's capture, meaning that he was placed in Law enforcement custody. Law enforcement was not present when KSM was captured which means he could be labeled as an enemy combatant by the ISI (which I pointed out earlier is more of a military organization than anything else).
Extradition is a legal term used for criminals in Law enforcement custody. Because KSM was never in the custody of law enforcement, it is a fallacy to refer to his transfer to U.S. military custody as Extradition.
He wasn't extradited to the US under civilian law. He was transferred to the US from Pakistan under military law.
If he is being charged with offenses within the US, then he could be tried in civilian court. However, he MAY be tried in civilian court but he doesn't have to be It is the discretion of the judge presiding over that jurisdiction as to whether or not he/she wants to issue a warrant.
So, there is no reason KSM cannot be tried in military court and save us all $3.5 billion, or whatever the real cost is.
"It's about hate, really"
WOW!
a trial wholly consistent with the 1st WTC bomber (Yousef) arrested in pakistan in 1995, convicted to life in prison in a civ court in NYC and serving his term in prison colorado is "HATE"?!?!?!
WOW.
"save us all $3.5 billion, or whatever the real cost is. "
i hate to be the one to tell you this, but justice isn't a dollar figure, nor dispatched at your convenience.
I guess KSM wasa hiding int he State of Pakistan … thanks scott !
you are simply making stuff up now.
"Us law enforcement agents were present for Yousef's capture"
but they could not perform the arrest. he needed to be **extradited**
"it is a fallacy to refer to his transfer to U.S. military custody as Extradition. "
that is ****precisely*** what it was.
"He will weaken our standing in the world"
Only if you feel the actions taken by the US were illegal, amoral, less than honorable and if exposed to the world in a fair and open court of law, with both sides properly represented, would indeed weaken our standing.
do you believe that?
[...] the rest here: Big Government » Blog Archive » Hosting Terrorist Khalid Sheikh … Social Bookmarking Share and [...]
[...] here to see the original: Big Government » Blog Archive » Hosting Terrorist Khalid Sheikh … Kontynuuj czytanie » || Napisał dnia: 24.11.09. || Tagi:attorney, attorney-general, [...]
"Your question is loaded."
your previous answer was loaded. i just pulled the trigger.
"I do not want any information that may weaken our intelligence gathering to be disclosed in public"
court cases involving state secrets, spies, terrorists, etc. have all played out in civilian court before. why you think this is somehow any different from the myriad of other cases that did involve very sensitive information has not yet been properly explained
If these terrorists were executed years ago, we wouldn't have this problem today. Sorry to say, but this is Bush's fault for not executing them. He was on target executing the prisoners here in Texas but not in Gitmo.
"court cases involving state secrets, spies, terrorists, etc. have all played out in civilian court before."
List them here please…
Michael H. Allen, retired Navy, gave classified information to the Philippines. Arrested 1986, eight year sentence, $10,000 fine, lost retirement benefits.
Ludwig Forbrich, attempted to pass information to the East Germans in 1984. Caught by FBI undercover operation. Fifteen year sentence.
Christopher John Boyce (born February 16, 1953) is a convicted spy who sold U.S. spy satellite secrets to the Soviet Union in the 1970s.
Aldrich Hazen Ames (born May 26, 1941) is a former Central Intelligence Agency counter-intelligence officer and analyst, who, in 1994, was convicted of spying for the Soviet Union and later Russia.
Robert Philip Hanssen (born April 18, 1944) is a former American FBI agent who spied for Soviet and Russian intelligence services against the United States for more than twenty years. Despite the fact that he revealed highly sensitive security information to the Soviet Union, federal prosecutors agreed not to seek the death penalty in exchange for his guilty pleas to fifteen espionage and conspiracy charges. He is serving a life sentence at the U.S. Bureau of Prisons Administrative Maximum facility in Florence, Colorado, a "Supermax" federal prison in which Hanssen spends twenty-three hours a day in solitary confinement..
[...] Link: Big Government » Blog Archive » Hosting Terrorist Khalid Sheikh … [...]
"anti-bush" is the same as "anti-republican party" as far as the war in iraq, 90% of tax cuts benefiting the wealthiest 1% of americans,, inaction on health care reform, inaction to protect the economy, inaction on… yadda yadda yadda.
[...] Continued here: Big Government » Blog Archive » Hosting Terrorist Khalid Sheikh … [...]
thankfully, in the United States, we value justice, honor,and integrity. those are not found in five minutes with a length of rope. what you post is logically orthogonal to what the United States stands for.
thankfully.
I get real sick and tired of libs like you blaming the economy solely on Bush when it was your boys, Dodd and Frank, who were minding the store at Fannie and Freddie while the books were being cooked. Bush tried to regulate them several times, specifically in 2005 and the Dems refused. Dodd and Frank specifically told him everything was just swell. Then the roof caved in. You do realize that the Dems ran the Congress since early 2007, don't you? Bush was asked why he signed so many spending bills and he said that he needed money for the troops and the Dems were attaching it to their pork bills. BTW, your leader was once a community organizer who taught the Acorn minions how to stage sit-ins at banks and mortgage companies to secure mortgages the minions couldn't pay back. Actions such as these were the prelude to the downfall. As for tax cuts for the top 1%, we're not in that bracket but as a small business owner, we benefitted from these cuts. Which was why unemployment was low under Bush.
I have a question for Scott. Why is Hasan going to be tried by military tribunal? After all, he's a US citizen committing violent acts on US soil. Is it because the acts took place on a military base? I'm sure that's hack Holder's reasoning because he needs something, no matter how flimsy, to explain this ridiculous and dangerous game he's playing. As for scoffing at a potential cost of $3 billion, what is the difference between that and $75 million when NYC, which is going bankrupt, will have to pay for it? Of course, that means nothing to the Spendthrift-in-Chief, who's spending us into oblivion without a care in the world. He never had it so good.
One other thing. Holder by all accounts does not have legal authority to conduct such a trial without the approval of the CinC, who has admitted to not signing off on it. Which is hard to believe as Holder wouldn't do anything Obama didn't want. After all, Holder is Obie's waterboy. So someone is lying. Which means that if KSM gets off on a technicality, Holder is going to be Obama's scapegoat. Obie never takes responsibility unless the going is good.
How quaint of you to say that during what is a prolonged recession due to the policies of your anti-free market leader. This is nothing but a show trial to put the Bush administration and the CIA on trial.
Holder doesn't have the authority to take MSK out of a military tribunal trial, in the middle of it ( which is what is supposedly going to be done ) and Gates doesn't have the authority to hand him over to Holder.
The ONLY person who has such authority is…………………………………………………………………………………………OBAMA.
For the very ignorant trolls who keep getting all manner of things wrong, the trials of the '93 WTC bombers, due to discovery, gave the subsequent "mastermind", KSM, very important info about how to pull off a SUCCESSFUL second try.
Since KSM has already pleaded guilty ( though he and the others are now pleading "innocent, even though all of them acknowledge that they did what they are accused of doing ), this "new" trial is sort of double jeopardy, which is something which the 5th Amendment to our Constitution says can NOT be done !
Add to all of the above, the Germans are going to refuse to give us ANY info that would help to convict these guys, unless we swear that not a bone of them will get the death penalty.
Thanks to the now convicted and finally being sent to jail, the far lefty lawyer, Lynne Stewart, smuggled out messages from the Blind Sheik, to his follower, about where and when to commit terrorist acts.
"Bush tried to regulate them several times, specifically in 2005 and the Dems refused"
in 2005, bush was in power and the 109th congress had a republican majority. so i'm not buying this "he tried but the democrats defeated him" bs.
"ou do realize that the Dems ran the Congress since early 2007, don't you? "
you do realize that bush was president 2000-2008, and had a majority republican congress for SIX YEARS 2000-2006 don't you?
"Bush was asked why he signed so many spending bills and he said that he needed money for the troops and the Dems were attaching it to their pork bills."
it's called a VETO.bush could have stopped ANYTHING. and don't pretend republican congress weren't lining up to the trough, THEY WERE.
"As for tax cuts for the top 1%, we're not in that bracket but as a small business owner, we benefitted from these cuts. "
THEY CASED RECORD DEFICITS that we are STILL PAYING BACK TODAY. you upset with washington spending? this is it!
"Which was why unemployment was low under Bush. "
yeah. borrowing money from the chinese to pay for off budget wars and tax cuts that we can't afford will generally lower unemployment. UNTILL we have to pay that money back that it. WHICH IS RIGHT NOW.
bush sacrificed our future by granting tax cuts that we couldn't afford to the wealthiest Americans.
"This is nothing but a show trial to put the Bush administration and the CIA on trial. "
KSM's trial is being run in a manner wholly consistent with 1993 WTC bomber Yousef, who was arrested in pakistan and extradited to the united states, tried in a civilian court of law in 1995,convicted to life in prison, where he is serving his term in a supermax facility in colorado today.
that trial in 1995 was during clinton- before bush even took office. you are being ridiculously paranoid and making completely unsubstantiated claims.
Amid reports of an impending deal with Hamas to secure the release of captured IDF soldier Gilad Schalit, President Shimon Peres told reporters in Cairo on Sunday that progress had indeed been made toward a prisoner exchange.
Captured IDF soldier Gilad Schalit.
Photo: Courtesy
SLIDESHOW: Israel & Region | World
"There are negotiations between the two sides. I do not think that I need to elaborate. We all know there is progress. I hope that it will lead to a positive conclusion," Peres said.
Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi warned that the media reports on progress in the talks "could harm the efforts" to release Schalit.
"We have a deep commitment to release Gilad and this is a joint effort by everyone, but it needs to stay behind the scenes," he said. "This is what will contribute to his returning home quickly."
RELATED
Ashkenazi: 'Speculation on Schalit deal not useful'
Peres: Progress in Schalit talks, best not to discuss
Editorial: What price Schalit?
IDF spokesman: Don't believe Schalit 'disinformation'
Despite his words, the Israeli, international and Arab media churned out headlines throughout the day on an imminent agreement.
Fox News reported that a deal had taken "another important step" forward and that Israel has approved a Hamas list of 70 additional names that met its criteria for release.
QUICK VOTE
Are we nearing a Schalit deal?
Something is definately happening
I won't believe it until I see it
Current Results
Previous Results
Israel originally had reservations about 70 names on a Hamas list of 450 security prisoners it demanded in exchange for Schalit, 22, who has been held by Hamas in Gaza since June 2006.
According to Al-Arabiya satellite news, senior Hamas officials will arrive in Cairo on Monday for talks with Egyptian officials and Gaza-based Hamas officials.
Usama Mazeini, a Hamas official involved in the German-brokered negotiations over Schalit, told Hamas newsletter Al-Risala on Saturday that the remaining "obstacles" were close to being resolved.
He gave no further details, but the publication quoted anonymous Hamas officials as saying a deal is "reaching completion."
Germany's new Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle arrives in Israel on Monday for a pre-arranged visit.
Some reports have speculated that a deal, or at least its first stage, will be carried out by Friday in conjunction with the Id al-Adha Muslim holiday.
Noam Schalit told the media on Sunday that he had received no officials reports of any progress.
"At this moment, there is nothing new," he said.
The deal would need to be approved by the cabinet and would be brought for a vote before its implementation, possibly as early as this week.
On Sunday, Al-Arabiya reported that Israel could release as many as 1,000 security prisoners in exchange for Schalit.
The Dubai-based broadcaster said that if the deal goes through, Schalit would return to Israel via Egypt.
The report said that the list of prisoners included Fatah-Tanzim leader Marwan Barghouti, as well as other prisoners with "blood on their hands," who had been involved in terrorist attacks that killed Israelis.
Hamas's announcement on Saturday that it was reining in all of the Gazan factions to prevent rocket fire is viewed as a step toward an agreement, since Hamas understands that a rocket attack with casualties could set back a deal indefinitely.
Hamas hopes that the release of hundreds of prisoners will boost its popularity and help it win the next PA elections.
On Sunday night, 10 IDF reservists who have worked for Schalit's release met with Defense Minister Ehud Barak in his Tel Aviv office for an hour and a half.
It was a "positive, serious and open conversation," St.-Sgt. (res.) Tzachi Leon told The Jerusalem Post, adding that he understood that serious and difficult negotiations were under way.
The group left with the feeling that Barak is determined to advance the negotiations and that releasing Schalit is important to him, Leon said. He did not want to say more for fear of prejudicing the negotiations.
But even as Schalit supporters expressed cautious optimism that a breakthrough might be imminent, opponents of a prisoner swap quickly mobilized to prevent it.
The Almagor Terror Victims Association plans to set up a protest tent in front of the Prime Minister's Residence on Monday and to hold a rally there on Wednesday. On Tuesday, it will lobby legislators in the Knesset.
The group has long said that those released in such deals are likely to carry more more deadly attacks against Israelis. It has also said that such deals encourage groups such as Hamas to kidnap more soldiers.
Lt.-Col. (res.) Dan Zion said that a prisoner release was "immoral" and could lead to a third intifada.
The same government that believes it can stop Iran's nuclear program, can most certainly figure out how to rescue one soldier from Gaza without releasing prisoners who are likely to kill more Israelis, Zion said.
He added that while he wants to see Schalit released, it should not be done at "any price."
As someone who had led a squadron in the air force and had flown missions over enemy territory, he never expected the government to release terrorists to free him if he were captured, he said.
But supporters of a swap have argued that the principle of returning soldiers to Israel is one of the cornerstones of IDF service, and failure to adhere to it would create a crisis in morale that would deter future soldiers from serving in the army.
Leon said that should a deal be announced, Schalit supporters would immediately to mobilize support for its implementation.
"We will do all we can do," he said.
Leon did not like the idea of releasing terrorists, but "there is no other choice," he said.
Spare me the bleeding heart liberal speech. This guy was behind the worst terrorist attack in our country's history. He was "judge and jury" when he condemed thousands of US citizens to death for simply being Americans, so don't expect me to rush to his defense in the name of justice. Justice for those who suffered through that horrible day is seeing him at the end of a rope!!
"Spare me the bleeding heart liberal speech"
if a right to fair trial is bleeding heart liberal, count me in.
what do you stand for?
as usual you miss the point…
Your convoluted logic in defense of the indefensible is one thing. But to blatantly overlook the political theater desired by the far left- to have a Red show trial- shows just how truly either clueless, or zombified you have become in defense of Dear Leader. This shouldn't, and needn't have happened. They are going to get the propaganda platform they want and New York will pay dearly in time, money and effort for the dubious prize of becoming a bigger terrorist target.
Yes, it is about the hatred of the left. Wise up…
you continue to overlook the FACTS:
SM is being tried under PRECISELY the same conditions as WTC bomber Yousef in 1995. that was DURING CLINTON and BEFORE BUSH. your claims are wholly absurd and completely without merit.
EXPLAIN THAT?
he is a uniformed officer, and is subject to punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
your question is completely irrelevant to KSM, and it is wholly illogical to have even brought to this discussion.
One other thing.
KSM is being tried under PRECISELY the same conditions, the same civilian court in NYC as the first WTC bomber Yousef in 1995. that was DURING CLINTON and BEFORE BUSH TOOK OFFICE. your claims are wholly absurd and completely without merit.
"We've all seen and heard how those cases in civilian court have gone."
OH you mean the trial of Ramzi Yousef, the 1993 WTC bomber arrested in pakistan, by the pakistanis, extradicted to the US, tried in a civilian court of law in NYC, convicted and sentenced to life in prison where he is serving that out in a supermax prison in colorado?
you mean trials like that?
you are just making stuff up.
no paranoia.
Were we in a war with these people then? No. Had the WTC been turned to rubble yet? No.
Had 3,000 civilians and 5,000 troops been killed yet? No. Had the efforts of three administrations been turned to a worldwide threat of terrorism? No. There's your explanation.
It's 2009 now. Not 1995. The stakes are far greater. Military tribunals have worked just fine. This doesn't need to happen. It is being done for political reasons.
Period.
Fair trial? The attorney's who represent these guys have already come out and said they are pleading "not guilty", even though he himself has confessed. By doing this, they are giving the terrorists center stage to tell the world why Americans are evil "infidels" and need to die. This trial will be a political circus costing US tax payers millions of dollars and a slap in the face to everyone who lost someone in these attacks. The liberal attorney's are already portraying these guys as "victims" of the Bush Adminstration.
". The stakes are far greater. "
yet the crime, and the punishment remains the same under law.
sorry pal. no matter how outraged you may be, the trial of KSM is wholly consistent with the trial of Yousef. this is not a vast left wing conspiracy of hate.
that is a shame. i've been asking this question all over this blog, and although there's no shortage of insults, no one can seem to come up with an answer,
as usual, when backed in to a corner and forced to provide proof, data, or citations, the biggovernment.com blog posters quit.
a fair trial does indeed grant the accused the right to face their accuser.
specifically, the trial of Ramzi Yousef, the first WTC bomber to strike in 1993. his case is EXACTLY the same as KSM, he had his day in civilian court., gave his speech, then was found guilty, and sentenced. there were no international travesties. it did not cost $3BILLION, or any more than any other high profile case.
why does anyone think trying KSM will be any more costly, any more dangerous, any different?
from my earlier:
"you mean the trial of Ramzi Yousef, the 1993 WTC bomber arrested in pakistan, by the pakistanis, extradicted to the US, tried in a civilian court of law in NYC, convicted and sentenced to life in prison where he is serving that out in a supermax prison in colorado?"
Despite your fevered assertions it is exactly that. Blinded by ideology (self admitted) you cannot see the forest for the trees. Every point raised you have summarily dismissed with thte turgid excuse of 'it's been done before'. The crime- and punishment- of these is greater than what Yousef committed.
This is going nowhere, friend. Quit while you're ahead…
although your attitude may have changed brought about by world events, nothing has changed in the law between 1995 and 2009. this much is clear.
my point stands. the crime, and the punishment remains the same under law. whether it be Yousef in 1995, or KSM in 2009. in light of that, you have yet to explain why or how they should be prosecuted differently.
shame on you.
no, my 'last word' friend…
Everything has changed- and you are a fool for not noticing. If you haven't been paying attention the law is pretty maleable- particulalry since the former administration got involved- now it's Obama's turn for legal gyrations.
Your point is specious. You have been given explanations exactly why this is different and YOU choose to ignore it in a sad display of high minded 'idealism'- which is the ruse this Show Trial is passing under. Many tens of millions will be spent, the tactics of the GWOT will be displayed for all to see, the intel operations of the US will be- like the Church commission under the last Democrat idiot Jimmy Carter- compromised for decades.
And when we are attacked- again- the Left will scream 'why didn't we see this coming?'
No, shame on YOU…
it wasn't a "show trial" in 1995, and not one single person (including you) can give reason why KSM's trial will be any more expensive, any more a platform for terrorists, any different in any meaningful way whatsoever.
we've tried spies and terrorists in civilian courts countless times before without giving state secrets to the whole world. i thin we'll find a way to do the same with KSM. For sure, no one has given any logical reason to suspect otherwise.
that's my last word.
if you took your head out of your rear end for ONE MINUTE and listened, perhaps you might understand. You are incorrect in your assertion about 'not giving away state secrets'- we did in the Yousef trial and had to change the way- and successful ways- we did business. The Church Commission, which you summarily ignored as well- compromised our intelligence so badly as to render it massively ineffective- we beacme addicted to Elint and sacrificed Humint-
and 9/11 was an end result. These are 'inconvenient facts' (forgive the Algore reference) that are demonstrably true. Your side says it doesn't matter; we need to be a 'better place' or 'rise above it' or whatever.
We just say this is tomfoolery of the Highest Order that nets us absolutely nothing- and the downside?
Just got explained to you…
Are your kids ready for this??
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2...
"giving away state secrets'- we did in the Yousef trial and had to change the way- and successful ways- we did business."
you make the claim but as always fail to provide detail. that claim is, in fact, not true.
The Church Commission prevented federal spying on American citizens. which was sadly very much needed at the time. and still is, imho.
not sure whether to give you credit for determination or sheer idiocy…
The Church commission gutted our intel capacity. You obviously know nothing about how intelligence is procured. We exposed agents- many of which were killed- and destroyed networks. This was a deliberate attack of the left- useful idiots- to help comminism take root in central america.
It heped create the 'contra' phenomenon. This led to an over reliance on Elint- and therefore we had no agents or networks in operation when the Islamic thing arose.
You say no details? What else do you need? Spying on US citizens? THAT"d ehat you think the Church Commission resulted in? You have to stop reading the Kos.
Do you even understand or grasp the issues here? Or you just don't care?
This is a show trial that Obama is tossing to his left wing base- you- to mollify while he ramps up Afghanistan. If you can't see that, you are blind.
Suffice to say we are done trying to reason with you on this topic…
???
this is SPECIFICALLY about the trials of KSM and Yousef.
disagree however you feel on long standing American foreign or intel policy. Your opinions on that are all quite immaterial.
Again, we are discussing the law of the land today,as is written and interpreted for both KSM and Yousef trials..
as have you. Our opinions are as material to this as is your nerdy left wing take…
Cnstantly repeating something that flies in the face of reality doesn't help you, either.
You keep discussing 'the law'. Which one? And how was it, and is it now being interpreted? You think giving constitutional rights to practitioners of asymetrical warfare a good idea?
Just what do you really know? Other than regurgitating other people's thoughts- and making assertions that YOU think to be facts but are just more lefty Kool-aid, like your incredibly naive take on the Church commission? When you state 'facts' you post nitwittery like the Kos or their left wing loon lawyers.
They lie, and often. You don't strike us a a fabricator, but you really need to stop imbibing so deeply of the Red-flavored kool aid and think for yourself. You insult easily as well, which indicates a very naive grasp of the real issues- just your narrow ideological ('Obama is good') prejudice drives your dialectic.
"Just what do you really know?"
i KNOW of the trial of Yousef.
"You insult easily as well, which "
oh, brother. if you only SAW the kind of insults i receive on this blog. i am a puppy dog in comparison
[...] amounts of period and added organisation … Go here to wager the original: Big Government » Blog Archive » Hosting Terrorist Khalid Sheikh … Posted in Uncategorized | Tags: additional-personnel, attorney, attorney-general, cover-the, [...]
and we never have insulted you-but you take insult quickly.
Knowing of the Yousef trial- bad law, bad results- they eventually did get their target, didn't they? means little.
It is what Holder is running with- and if this is any consolation there are libertarians (Judge Napolitano) who agree.
We just don't. And if you don't at least admit the political calculations involved here- this is not a 'noble' exercise-
than there isn't much more to say-
except have a nice day…
"So this is about the financial burden of bringing a killer to justice? "
??? no. not to me. not at all. however, it evidently is to the author of the blog post we are responding to.
"KSM has the world's ear and he will use it for as long as he can in an effort to make more little jihadists. "
this is part of a fair trial and the right to confront your accuser. why are you so opposed to this? and what makes you think a military tribunal would be any different?
why are you so terrified of this?
"that's my last word."
Allah be blessed!!!
while i can appreciate there are political ramifications, saying the trial is a "show trial" and motivated primarily by hate, when Yousef trial exists (and was? was not?) motivated by hate (against whom?) is absurdist.
and a good day to you, sir.
we'll stand on the hate thing, friend…
reducing politics to the base emotions of HATE is over simplistic and indeed, absurd.
bill clinton's impeachment? hate? Watergate investigation? hate?
go ahead. keep your belief in hate politics if you feel so obliged. it will do you, and your party, no good in the end.
it is the Left that hates, friend. With a passion, too. For it is the refuge of the atheistic, and the secular- those who find an absolute in their human failings and are wrong- absolutely.
Clinton was the chief law enforcement office of the US. He lied under oath. Watergate- Nixon-
same without the lie.
Listen to your heroes. Scott Bloom. Andy Stern
Anita Dunn. Mark Lloyd. Billy Ayers. Jeff Jones.
There is enough hate there to fuel a whole movement-
oh, wait- that's what htey did…
scott z. Do you want to be rich? you are a schizophrenic Lib
can you refute anything i just said there? or will you just be name-calling today?
"it is the Left that hates, friend. With a passion, too."
you seem consumed with rage just typing those words. it is you whose heart is filled with hate..
i told you, refuteing my dog would be more worthwhile, answer my question you envious worm, your jealousy of rich people is blatant, so i ask you do you want to be rich? of course you do, so youre a schizophrenic LIB, its not name calling its a fact, you have 2 opposite philosophical beiliefs insdie your head, but your IQ is too low to understand, why would anyone waste time refuting a crazy person, you are flippin boring
"Well, he did. Please be informed before you have a discussion. Also, it is completely rude to tell me that I am not talking facts when it is clearly you who are not."
the trial has not yet started yet, in fact, a trial date has not even been set. it is quite impossible that he has entered his plea as you assert.
and yes. it is completely rude to tell me that I am not talking facts when it is clearly you who are not.
not hardly. We are not capable of hate; it diminishes the spirit. It is just an observation of your side of the equation.
So, as you see this is getting neither of us anywhere. There will never be agreement- you are hard wired to think what you do, and many years of experience form our viewpoints. So, one more time let' agree to disagree and leave it at that…
"We are not capable of hate;"
too late. you already showed your hand. i see what you are.
what is rich to you? define rich and i will answer your question.
how could KSM plead not guilty as you assert if the trial has not yet started?
hm.
the trial has not yet started yet, in fact, a trial date has not even been set. it is quite impossible that he has entered his plea as you assert.
what the hell do you think it means, do you wish you had alot of money, oh wait let me guess youre boring response… whats your definition of 'alot' of money. the way you answer questions with questions is fascinating. heres one for ya why is global warming a hoax…whats your definition of hoax, keep working hard in your high school debating club ok, now do you understand why when i see your posts i just skip them
i ask only because while everything is relative, i am relatively wealthy in most areas of life. and i wonder why that matters to you.
this is not the military hearing. and above anyway, you claimed KSM's trial would be ***different*** because Youssef pleaded guilty.
you are clearly just making stuff up here.
i am in favor of the rule of law, and using every precaution within said law to prevent intel from getting in to the wrong hands.
are you inciting the assassination of the president of the United States of America?
are you inciting murder?
Obama can try to impress the rest of the world with his fairness as he nose dives in popularity at home. Suits me just fine. His America on trial fiasco will be in full swing in 2012. If our president wants more nails for his political coffin, then please by all means give them to him! Let him have his trial!!!!!!
you are rich in schizophrenia i agree, why it matters to me? what the hell is wrong with you, toure the one that just posted all this envious clap trap about the rich, thats my point why does somones wealth matter so much to you, you seem to be quite envious of the wealthy, and all people who hate on rich people i got one question for…do you want to be rich? and then they either answer honestly and expose their schizophrenia or they lie like a true lib and say no i dont want to be rich, i onlty want a fair distribution enforced bya govt. czar, god i cant stand talking to libs, dont you have some bowels to go eat?
we were CLEARLY speaking of the upcoming civilian trail, the one where you suggested he had instead issued a not guilty plea.
it was in the context of Yousef's civilian trial, and me asking you how KSM's would differ.
"you seem to be quite envious of the wealthy,"
there is not one post where that could possibly have been suggested. i think you are projecting.
" i got one question for…do you want to be rich?"
i can answer that for you if you want,but again, you have to tell me what 'rich' is.
if only wearing a dunce cap and putting you in a corner would have worked, youre parents must be embarassed.
hows that global warming hysteria working out for ya, god damn youre pathetic
funny you should mention that. i have an open challenge for anyone to find a single peer reviewed published study that refutes, much less attempts to disprove human caused global climate change.
i cannot find a single one!
your reply reeks of strong, overwhelming anti-intellectualism.
i feel my IQ dropping when i comment with you, your off the charts stupid. did you FAIL to notice that your globabl warming hysteric allies cooked the books. yeah youre intelectual…poseur, if youre an intellectual then theyre going to have to redefine the word, hey thats right up your alley, what do you mean by redefine, what is your definition of intellect, what is global, what is…on and on… youre intellctual skills remind me of a child attempting to figure out whats going on.
"did you FAIL to notice that your global warming hysteric allies cooked the books"
if you are referring to the emails hacked from a dozen researchers, i am well aware. here is a point by point refutation of any charges of improper or unethical dealings:
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/a6zdw/su...
***even if you do not accept that*** you have to explain how the the science of tens of thousands of other researchers, from hundreds of different institutions and universities, and dozens of different countries who independently came to the same conclusions.
you simply believe anything you read in a right wing blog, don't you?
that's none too bright. anti-intellectualist, if you will.
"he is a war criminal"
this is simply not true.the united states cannot declare war against non-state actors, and non-state actors cannot commit acts of war against the United States.
this is pure, simple, fact. and by claiming otherwise, you are a liar.
no you don't. You are as clueless about that as you are everything else. Just an obstinate little lefty who desires the nyaa nyaa last word. You have never shown one original thought. Not one. If there is shame here it is your pandering to your liberal masters. You are the one who comes into a conservative/libertarian site; make specious allegations based on DNC talking points and thenpost links to left wing sites as 'proof'.
Not us.
So, if there are winners and losers in life's struggles it is indeed you who need to grow up and act like you have a pair instead of being a whiny nerd.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it…
We're not at war with Afganistan. We are at war with the Taliban. They are certainly non-state.
Call me a liar? I kinda figured that was coming but had to see. That's the mark of every great poser.
the taliban **was** afghanistan when we invaded. they *were* the afghan government.
again with the name calling.
still haven't answered my question but that's okay/
Again, we are discussing the law of the land today,as is written and interpreted for both KSM and Yousef trials..There is no reason why KSM's trial would be any more damaging, any more expensive, any more of a show trial than Yousef- who was arrested in pakistan, extradicted to the US, convicted by a civilian court in NYC, and serving a life sentence in colorado.
you have utterly failed to make any case to that point at all.
you don't quit, do you?
the case has been made multilpe times; you don't pay any attention to the salient points and continue in your single minded rant. The question here is why bother?
You just aren't worth the time…
if the answer has already been stated, can you link to it?
i must have missed it…
what is it you want other than attention? Posting links is the lazy man's way out of a discussion. The debate- whether to try this man in civilian court or established military tribunals- is one of legal minutiae and personal opinion. You have stated yours, with the requisite lefty links. Not convincing. We have given you our take. YOU are not convinced.Let it go…
you cant find any, how suprising
politics isnt about intellect Einstein, its about public relations
and regarding your intellect, theres 57 states, right, thats what your smart idol Obama thinks, you dunces are pathetic, like i said move to north Korea youll have more in common with your neighbors
"you cant find any, how suprising "
i am taking that to mean you can't either, despite your claim that they are commonplace
"politics isnt about intellect Einstein, its about public relations "
whoa, back up there chief. we are talking about science the science of human caused global climate change here.
are you going to try and tell me science is all about public relations? from your point of view, that's probably how it is, huh?
like i sadi who refutes a crazy person? I think it fruitful to go down to the mental hospital and debate the patients dont you scott sciZZZZZ, your nickname should be skizzy, as in schizophrenic.
yeah Skizz thats exactly what i was saying science is public relations…the menatal hospital called they want you to get back home. Please keep being a Lib dunce I truly enjoy you clowns
Great posting. Thanks of shairing useful and important post.