Trials to be held in N.Y.

Originally posted by trev33
"Tried in Guantamo, executed in Guantanamo..."

i see the word but i fail to see the action.

but the main point of my post is that if you commit a crime in a certain country you should be trialed in that country under their laws. and seeing that each state in america has slightly different laws, the only conclusion should be that anyone accused of the 9/11 acts of terrorism (not war) should be trailed in new york state.

thats where we disagree.I view it as a act of war.It is a jihad,a holy war against us. They should be tried in a military tribunal.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
The Op mentions or quotes nothing of a Republican. Webb is a democrat and Lieberman is a Independant

My post cites a BBC headline that I saw half an hour ago.

Senior US Republicans have condemned the Obama administration's move to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others in New York.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said bringing the suspects from Guantanamo into the US was would put "Americans unnecessarily at risk".

The five will be tried in a civilian court near Ground Zero. The prosecution says it will seek the death penalty.

Democrats hailed the decision, while families of 9/11 victims are divided.

The move is part of US President Barack Obama's efforts to close the Guantanamo detention centre for terror suspects.

It is not my aim to be particularly party specific about this. My post is about the crisis of U.S. stature. So I am quite willing to say this:

Republican condemnations - and those by likeminded Democrats - appear to me to be rooted in small minded retail politics and not principle. U.S. legislators who are critical of this decision seem to want their country to have the international stature and the legitimacy without doing, and adhering to, what it takes - and what it took in the past - to earn it.

There. Fixed.

Originally posted by FMF
My post cites a BBC headline that I saw half an hour ago.

[quote]Senior US Republicans have condemned the Obama administration's move to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others in New York.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said bringing the suspects from Guantanamo into the US was would put "Americans unnecessarily at ri ...[text shortened]... and adhering to, what it takes - and what it took in the past - to earn it.

There. Fixed.

international stature and the legitimacy

yeah! Right!

Originally posted by Melanerpes
I agree.

But the same should apply to ALL the other dangerous thugs currently in prison. We need to find some island far far away from American soil where we can house all these undesirables - where there's no chance they can escape into some American's backyard.

Australia maybe?

South Africa's pretty far too. We can send some to America too...those backwoods hicks are all a bunch of criminals anyway. They'll need savagery to survive with those primitive Indians.

Long live the King!

Wait a second.. 😕

Originally posted by utherpendragon
[b]international stature and the legitimacy

yeah! Right![/b]

There's no denying the U.S.'s international stature and the legitimacy took a severe battering 2002-2008. The world was totally foursquare behind the U.S. after 9/11. U.S. leadership and actions squandered it needlessly and without clear benefit.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
thats where we disagree.I view it as a act of war.It is a jihad,a holy war against us. They should be tried in a military tribunal.

You shouldn't dignify them by deeming them to be soldiers in a war. You shouldn't create a legitimacy or additional mystique in this way. You just play into their hands. They are not "military". They are criminals. Murderers. Terrorists. Civilian psychopaths representing no nation and no faith. They are not soldiers. They are depraved criminals. They should be tried as such. Properly. With due process. And then the U.S. can hold its head a little higher than it has been for the last several years. Military tribunals? Score one for Al Qaeda.

Originally posted by FMF
You shouldn't dignify them by deeming them to be soldiers in a war. You shouldn't create a legitimacy or additional mystique in this way. You just play into their hands. They are not "military". They are criminals. Murderers. Terrorists. Civilian psychopaths representing no nation and no faith. They are not soldiers. They are depraved criminals. They shou ...[text shortened]... her than it has been for the last several years. Military tribunals? Score one for Al Qaeda.

the previous administration defined them as "enemy combatants" and was dealing w/them accordingly.This administration wants to change that now and deal w/them as felons. Being tried now in our judicial system they stand a good chance of being acquitted. Not to mention it will cost tens of millions of dollars and be dragged out for God only knows how long to deal w/them this way.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
the previous administration defined them as "enemy combatants" and was dealing w/them accordingly.This administration wants to change that now and deal w/them as felons. Being tried now in our judicial system they stand a good chance of being acquitted. Not to mention it will cost tens of millions of dollars and be dragged out for God only knows how long to deal w/them this way.

Yep. The U.S. bungled it. Putting a price on setting it straight - or talking of not having enough patience to do the right thing - is all very grubby indeed. Score another one to Al Qaeda.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
This administration wants to change that now and deal w/them as felons.

Excellent decision. You should never have dignified them by deeming them to be soldiers in a war or legitimate "military" personell. And it's not a past misstep that can simply be ignored. It has to be rectified. It seems that the current administration is actually trying to restore, repair, rehabilitate the U.S. hopefully as part and parcel of a smarter way of tackling the scourge of fanatical terrorism.

Originally posted by FMF
Excellent decision. You should never have dignified them by deeming them to be soldiers in a war or legitimate "military" personell. And it's not a past misstep that can simply be ignored. It has to be rectified. It seems that the current administration is actually trying to restore, repair, rehabilitate the U.S. hopefully as part and parcel of a smarter way of tackling the scourge of fanatical terrorism.

the u.s. did not bungle anything nor does it need to be restored,rehabed or repaired.You would not know that though from listening to the current administration and the apology tours. When these clowns are gone then it will need to be repaired. Obama is currently bungling his way through it all.So far so good.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
the u.s. did not bungle anything nor does it need to be restored,rehabed or repaired.

How do you account for the incredible support for the U.S. in the aftermath of 9/11 - including concrete military and intelligence assistance - dwindling to the contempt and suspicion you are held in in many parts of the self same world - even by people who want to see the back of terrorism as sorely as Americans do - and even as the popularity of Al Qaeda has plummetted to almost nothing?

Originally posted by utherpendragon
the u.s. did not bungle anything

History will undoubtedly reach a consensus and find that the U.S. declaring itself above the established international law in terms of military actions (when it should have been militarized criminal investigations) and the status and handling of criminals of foreign citizenry was a terrible terrible bungle - one which probably still has ghastly blowback waiting up its sleeve for you and for U.S. servicemen and women, and for American citizens in general.

Originally posted by FMF
History will undoubtedly reach a consensus and find that the U.S. declaring itself above the established international law in terms of military actions (when it should have been militarized criminal investigations) and the status and handling of criminals of foreign citizenry was a terrible terrible bungle - one which probably still has ghastly blowback waiting up its sleeve for you and for U.S. servicemen and women, and for American citizens in general.

"dwindling to the contempt and suspicion you are held in in many parts of the self same world"

Name some nations who feel this way now who did not hold those same beliefs prior to GW Bush

Originally posted by utherpendragon
"dwindling to the contempt and suspicion you are held in in many parts of the self same world"

Name some nations who feel this way now who did not hold those same beliefs prior to GW Bush[/b]

You're missing the point. GW Bush had the support of the world (even Iran assisted you with intelligence and handing certain people over to you, remember?) and yet he bungled it. You appear to advocate blundering on without contemplating the significance of this in the context of what is supposed to be a "Global War On Terror". Anway, Americans at large appear to have got the point. They triggered this wise change of strategy at the ballot box. For the time being at least, your/Bush's approach has been eclipsed. I can't see how Obama's will be any worse. Let's hope it works - on that, we can agree, I think.

Originally posted by FMF
You're missing the point. GW Bush had the support of the world (even Iran assisted you with intelligence and handing certain people over to you, remember?) and yet he bungled it. You appear to advocate blundering on without contemplating the significance of this in the context of what is supposed to be a "Global War On Terror". Anway, Americans at large appear t ...[text shortened]... see how Obama's will be any worse. Let's hope it works - on that, we can agree, I think.

for 8 yrs w/Bush's "bungling" we had no terror attacks on american soil since 9/11. Since Obama took office I can think of two off hand. But,then again they were not "terror attacks".Obama likes to call them "man made disasters".