American Politics XXI

[Lightning Lord]

If one of these guys is aquitted, it's going to be very .... uh, interesting.

We're talking the full on, head-to-head collision of "What the public wants" and "What the laws of a just society say".

What the public wants is irrelevant. We have a judicial system for a reason. If the case gets thrown out, if they get acquitted, so be it. Maybe we'll have to have the CIA or mercenaries "take care of them," (not that I am advocating such action) but they should not be treated differently than other accused. Timothy McVeigh would have been released if he had been found not-guilty or if the case was thrown out, this should function in similar fashion.

And Scot, I don't understand either, why is releasing them to their home countries such an affront? Being acquitted in the US doesn't grant citizenship. So, we bring them home, let them go. Is there a law indicating we must protect non-citizens after they've left our jurisdiction? (really, I am asking, law isn't my strong suit)

[Shryke]

What the public wants is irrelevant. We have a judicial system for a reason. If the case gets thrown out, if they get acquitted, so be it. Maybe we'll have to have the CIA or mercenaries "take care of them," (not that I am advocating such action) but they should not be treated differently than other accused. Timothy McVeigh would have been released if he had been found not-guilty or if the case was thrown out, this should function in similar fashion.

Tell that to the politicians the public elects.

It's sad, but true, that if the public at large doesn't care about the way the government is breaking the law, there's a good chance nothing will be done about it.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

"that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

So when do we start altering? Or abolishing? Have Americans become too complacent to do anything about the wane of their rights?

I like Obama but he isn't getting it done. He's fallen right in line with the rest. I don't expect immediate changes, but I'd like to see him making different moves. I want someone looking out for our freedoms, especially the ones that fucker George Bush took from us. And our Congress. I want to see a President abolish the ridiculous patriot bill.

Also, all these "classic" Americans represented on Fox News are pissing me off. They're bitching about the KSM trial in New York City. How dare we give this man a trial at all?

I wish I could take dough boy Beck or stupid shit Oreilly and point him to the Boston Massacre where John Adams, who DETESTED the British as much as we detest Al Qaeda, represented the British soldiers on trial for murdering U.S. citizens. He hated these men. He hated the King. Yet he believed so much that all people deserved the rights he was pushing for, that he not only represented these men, but he proved they didn't willfully kill anyone.

I don't want KSM off the hook. But I want to see Americans acknowledge what the hell our country was founded on. That "all men are created equal" not "all Americans are created equal and to hell with the rest of you."

[Lightning Lord]

Tell that to the politicians the public elects.

It's sad, but true, that if the public at large doesn't care about the way the government is breaking the law, there's a good chance nothing will be done about it.

Our judicial system shouldn't care about public opinion. I know that's idealistic, but if we're going to have a separation of powers and an impartial judicial branch, we can't make exceptions. Any politician that actually re-incarcerates an acquitted individual loses my vote and that of as many people as I can convince.

[Shryke]

Our judicial system shouldn't care about public opinion. I know that's idealistic, but if we're going to have a separation of powers and an impartial judicial branch, we can't make exceptions. Any politician that actually re-incarcerates an acquitted individual loses my vote and that of as many people as I can convince.

Yes, but that will be weighted against how many people's votes they will lose by letting one of these guys walk. And I bet there's alot more of those other guys then people like you. (Not that I'm HAPPY about that fact, but I just think that's the way it is)

So it comes down to an "interesting" choice. Populism vs Justice, if you would. And honestly, I don't know which way some of these politicians will jump.

[Lightning Lord]

Yes, but that will be weighted against how many people's votes they will lose by letting one of these guys walk. And I bet there's alot more of those other guys then people like you. (Not that I'm HAPPY about that fact, but I just think that's the way it is)

So it comes down to an "interesting" choice. Populism vs Justice, if you would. And honestly, I don't know which way some of these politicians will jump.

I know you weren't saying you were stoked by that possible outcome and I did change my post to how things ought to work, according to our silly "laws" and "Constitution."

Popular opinion didn't change the OJ Simpson verdict, so there's at least one case...albeit not a particularly politically charged case.

[The_BlauerDragon]

***EVERYTHING THAT SIMON SAID.***

Simon, I am with you almost 100%. When the time comes to start altering or abolishing, I hope to see men like you standing next to me at the forefront of that effort.

[Shryke]

I know you weren't saying you were stoked by that possible outcome and I did change my post to how things ought to work, according to our silly "laws" and "Constitution."

Popular opinion didn't change the OJ Simpson verdict, so there's at least one case...albeit not a particularly politically charged case.

The OJ Simpson case, though, didn't have this cases countless opportunities for meddling.

Nor was it anywhere near as politically charged.

I think this whole thing is gonna be a fucking circus. Just think of what Fox News will be saying if it looks like an acquittal is coming.

[Darzin]

I wish I could take dough boy Beck or stupid shit Oreilly and point him to the Boston Massacre where John Adams, who DETESTED the British as much as we detest Al Qaeda, represented the British soldiers on trial for murdering U.S. citizens. He hated these men. He hated the King. Yet he believed so much that all people deserved the rights he was pushing for, that he not only represented these men, but he proved they didn't willfully kill anyone.

I vote that we create a petition to get Simon an interview with Glen Beck! I would pay alot of money to see his and the rest of FOX News and the right wing in general respond to this.

Bravo! :cheers:

[The_BlauerDragon]

I vote that we create a petition to get Simon an interview with Glen Beck! I would pay alot of money to see his and the rest of FOX News and the right wing in general respond to this.

Bravo! :cheers:

Assemble a link that I can go to and contribute to this cause, and I will gladly pay a little of what tiny amount of money I have to help see that interview become a reality. :cheers:

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ser Poss.,

Scot,

It seems like you're intentionally being obtuse here, or, as Sword said earlier, simply being contrary for the sake of being contrary so that you can continue to ask rhetorical questions that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

If these men are acquitted and no other country requests extradition, they can be deported to their home country or to where they were picked up. Simple as that. The plane lands, they get off and what happens, happens. Countries not wanting Gitmo detainees has absolutely nothing to do with this, as they're detainees and these would essentially be free men.

I also think you're skewing Holder's original comments for the sake of attempting to score political points. I never saw Holder's comments as saying, "these guys will stay in prison no matter what happens" but, "these guys are, without a doubt, going to be found guilty."

YMMV, of course, but it seems like you're the only one not getting this.

I'm sorry you see my point of view that way. Holder said there are laws against "terrorists" walking free in the United States. He didn't say, "Well if they are aquitted they would be illegal aliens subject to deportations", which is correct. Then again, are they illegals? Heck, would these guys even be in the U.S. if they hadn't been picked up by the U.S.? Again, this is in the context of a jury aquitting them for charges of terrorism. Either way Holder called them "terrorists" regardless of an aquittal. I have problems with that given the fact we're discussing what would happen in the event of an aquittal.

If Holder's comments really are "These guys are, without a doubt, going to be found guilty" isn't that problematic as well? See my comment to Guy Kilmore upthread.

[Lord O' Bones]

Holder said there are laws against "terrorists" walking free in the United States. He didn't say, "Well if they are aquitted they would be illegal aliens subject to deportations", which is correct.

OK.

Then again, are they illegals?

Yes.

Heck, would these guys even be in the U.S. if they hadn't been picked up by the U.S.?

They could be dead. And they sure as hell weren't picked up on the streets of Cleveland.

[Annelise]

I like Obama but he isn't getting it done. He's fallen right in line with the rest. I don't expect immediate changes, but I'd like to see him making different moves. I want someone looking out for our freedoms, especially the ones that fucker George Bush took from us. And our Congress. I want to see a President abolish the ridiculous patriot bill.

You need to look left and right. As long as the public is more afraid of terrorism than losing their freedoms, it will remain. Voters have to make it a priority. I'll be honest, I don't see that stone rolling downhill anytime soon judging by the hoopla caused by bringing those suspects into the states for trial. The fear, and the fear card, are clearly still part of our national landscape.

[Hereward]

I wish I could take dough boy Beck or stupid shit Oreilly and point him to the Boston Massacre where John Adams, who DETESTED the British as much as we detest Al Qaeda, represented the British soldiers on trial for murdering U.S. citizens. He hated these men. He hated the King.

Really? Adams detested British people as you detest Al Qaeda? I've obviously been reading the wrong history books. Must have made his successful stint as ambassador to Britain, intent on repairing relations, a sore trial to him.

[sologdin]

there a law indicating we must protect non-citizens after they've left our jurisdiction?

LL--

most states have a duty of non-refoulement inder art. 33 of the covention on refugees (the US is one of the barbaric states that has not actually ratified the CoR). the US does have a similar duty under art. 3 of the convention against torture.

the basic argument is that anyone acquitted in these trials will likely not have a right to remain in the US, but may be in danger of being murdered or tortured upon their return to their native states, as you note, most likely by the CIA or some merc thugs.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sologdin,

there a law indicating we must protect non-citizens after they've left our jurisdiction?

LL--

most states have a duty of non-refoulement inder art. 33 of the covention on refugees (the US is one of the barbaric states that has not actually ratified the CoR). the US does have a similar duty under art. 3 of the convention against torture.

the basic argument is that anyone acquitted in these trials will likely not have a right to remain in the US, but may be in danger of being murdered or tortured upon their return to their native states, as you note, most likely by the CIA or some merc thugs.

Thank you for seeing what I've been saying.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

Really? Adams detested British people as you detest Al Qaeda? I've obviously been reading the wrong history books. Must have made his successful stint as ambassador to Britain, intent on repairing relations, a sore trial to him.

Listen--you can play the typo game all day, but yes he detested British soldiers patrolling his streets and the King. He was not a loyalist to the cause. It is what it is, and it has nothing to do with the British people.

[Hereward]

Typo game? What are you talking about?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Lest one should think that the Obama Administration actually cares about due process or the rule of law:

Glenn Greenwald reports on what they're doing with some of the other detainees.

"What I'm absolutely clear about is that I have complete confidence in the American people and our legal traditions and the prosecutors, the tough prosecutors from New York who specialize in terrorism" -- Barack Obama, yesterday.

"Holder said five other Guantanamo detainees would be tried by military tribunals. The five include Abd al-Rahim al Nashiri, who is accused of masterminding the 2000 attack on the USS Cole warship in Yemen; and Canadian Omar Khadr, accused of killing a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan" -- NPR, yesterday.

"'Administration officials say they expect that as many as 40 of the 215 detainees at Guantanamo will be tried in federal court or military commissions . . . . and about 75 more have been deemed too dangerous to release but cannot be prosecuted because of evidentiary issues and limits on the use of classified material' . . . If true, that means that there are 75 so-called 'Fifth Category' detainees who might be subject to indefinite detention without trial" --

I suspect now that the KSM is merely getting a show trial. Obviously they have no problem indefinitely detaining someone or putting them in a secret military court. Why give him the chance at a public trial unless the outcome is pre-determined?

[TrackerNeil]

Lest one should think that the Obama Administration actually cares about due process or the rule of law:

I suspect now that the KSM is merely getting a show trial. Obviously they have no problem indefinitely detaining someone or putting them in a secret military court. Why give him the chance at a public trial unless the outcome is pre-determined?

Although I am an Obama fan, I am disappointed that there are detainees who will essentially remain under lock and key forever, without benefit of a trial to determine if they are actually guilty of something. However, let us not take this situation out of context. If the Bush Administration had been more prudent in its response to the destruction of the World Trade Center we might not be in this mess. And before you start, I am not blaming Bush for Obama's mistakes; I am saying that Obama's mistake was facilitated by the gross failures of his predecessor.