Why do liberal democrats protect terrorists?

9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser has a differing opinion.

"O'Donnell: Some of the victims' families of 9/11 have indicated that they're not pleased with this move to New York. How do you react to this?

Breitweiser: I think those families seem to be indicating a sense of anger or fear. And I think really, to be feeling those types of things, it doesn't fit my personality. I think that that's bowing to the terrorists."

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/cspanjunkie/911-widow-kristen-breitweiser-911-terr

jmark...here's her comment. And yes, you will find liberals who have lost lived ones on 9/11. But her comment, as she said repeatedly, is only how she feels and is NOT what our laws state or the constitution. "And I think really, to be feeling those types of things, it doesn't fit my personality. I think that that's bowing to the terrorists. I think there is no better place than the Southern District of New York to be having these prosecutions heard. I think it's an open forum. And I think it speaks to the world that we are in fact a nation of laws."

This blog is not about ones opinion, but what Mr Beamer found and heard while at the Senate meeting for questions to Eric Holder and the KSM trial: "A second shocker: Mr. Holder said that he and his boss had not spoken in person about this decision. This matter only involves upholding the constitutional rights of Americans, establishing a precedent with battlefield impact, and the safety and security of our citizens in a time of war. What are the criteria to make something a priority with President Barack Obama? How can it be that this matter didn't make the cut?"

What Mr. Holder said is what is most amazing. Not what ones opinions from a person who wasn't at the hearings.

WTF? How can we be sure they will be found guilty, will New Yorkers be safe? The attacks that took place on 11/09/2009 were a criminal act that took place on sovereign soil of the USA. The Circuit court in NYC is more than capable of handling these criminals. However all (not just citizens) are presumed innocent and putting on another show trail (think Saddam Husein) will serve nothing but to weaken the USA and its goals of "spreading freedom." I know that for conservatives its really difficult to live up to the ideal that the American Constitution has, you guys had slavery, discrimination and denied universal suffrage for years, all in the name of "states rights." Bottom line Bush pushed through many large bills, th so called no child left behind, the medicare prescription drugs bill, and the P.A.T.R.I.O.T ACT all were horrible bills jammed down our throats in the night that have made our nation worse off. If what you conservative want is a military junta that throws people away and only respects the rights of conservatives than move to Myanmar, well keep our rights here in our liberal democracy.

Proud progressive...whether or not the circuit court is capable has absolute nothing to do with this situation with terrorists on trial in our US courts. And your "proud" but false belief that the constitution denied universal suffrage for years also has zero to do with this blog post. But your most knowledgeable comment, "If what you conservative want is a military junta that throws people away and only respects the rights of conservatives than move to Myanmar, well keep our rights here in our liberal democracy" is even more ridiculous and again, does not address this blog or the Senate meeting reported by Mr. Beamer.

This blog and the facts are about violating our constitution by today’s liberal democrats in office by allowing a civil trial in our country for military enemies when our courts are for US citizens. The obviously bias Senate meeting was also about how do our soldiers give Miranda Rights to foreign soldiers, how much of our intell. will be exposed to an enemy that wants to kill you as much as me, and how such a disgraceful trial will embolden our enemy. All while KSM admitted to the cowardly and murderous acts on 9/11 and was ready to be put to death.

As I said in my opening statement: please liberals, read the blog before you comment for a change.

Jim: Please clear up a point. Did AG Holder not talk to President Obama or just not talk "in person"? Video conferencing - phone conversations - these are all legitimate means of communication - sometimes even these blogs involve communication.

Ref33...according to what Eric Holder actually said at the Senate meetings last Wed was that he and his boss had not spoken in person about this.

Jim: "by allowing a civil trial in our country for military enemies when our courts are for US citizens."

Jim, do you know the difference between a CIVIL trial and a CRIMINAL trial? This trial for KSM will not be a "civil" trial, and this act was not against our military - it was against our country. Our country that these people attacked because they do not agree with our laws, with our beliefs, with our lifestyle and our government. For the US to disregard the basic legal system and fundamental ideals of who we are would completely undermine everything we stand for. I sympathize with Mr Beamer, and understand his emotional response to this issue.

And Jim, it sounds as though you are stating that a person must be a US citizen in order to be prosecuted in our court of law. Is that what you are saying?

Jim: So Jim, when you say "what is most surprising about this meeting is where Eric Holder said he didn't discuss this with his boss", did you lie? Sure looks like it.
How did Reid get this health care bill put together so fast? Maybe he followed the lead of Jim Sensenbrenner, who foisted the Patriot Act on us in 42 days. Think maybe a lot of that bill was already written, just waiting for the opportunity to ram it through?

CD...what I'm saying is all enemies who attack our country have never been tried in any US court. Only tribunals. Holder didn't even know that!!! The damage is too severe to allow attorneys, yes lawyers, to open up a kangaroo court where our military has tried enemies for ever.

Jim, that may very well be the case in the past, however this particular trial, this particular enemy, has no precendent. This was not an attack from a country, it was not a formal declaration of war - it was an attack on our country by a group of religious zealots and they should be subjected to exactly the same legal standard that makes this country who we are.

You are always going on about America, how this country is so great - but yet, you do not think our judicial system, our Constitution, is up to par to condemn our enemies? We cannot undermine our laws, our high standards, just because this particular enemy is by far our worst yet....

CD...according to the latest Senate hearings, you are wrong. Listen to the comments answers from Holder on Wed. Are you saying no terrorist or terrorist group delcared war on the US and 9/11 was not an act of war?

CNN's John King on Thursday claimed Attorney General Eric Holder intentionally avoided Sen. Lindsey Graham's "stumping" question during the previous day's Senate Judiciary Committtee hearing because he didn't want to admit that trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 9/11 suspects in a criminal courtroom is indeed precedent setting.

SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made –

GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.

HOLDER: Well, I think –

GRAHAM: The Ghailani case -- he was indicted for the Cole bombing before 9/11. And I didn't object to it going into federal court. But I'm telling you right now. We're making history and we're making bad history. And let me tell you why.

CD part II: MALZBERG: How could the Attorney General of the United States, who said that he labored with this decision, and he went over the facts, and he studied, and he labored, and he took months, and he talked to people. How could he not know the first thing any two-bit lawyer would ask in making a decision or trying to make a decision, or advising on a decision, has this ever happened before? How could the Attorney General of the United States, first of all, six seconds of silence, and he couldn't, "I don't know, I'll have to get back to you?" How, that's question number one. And question number two is I reported on this, I did this all day yesterday. National Review, Andy McCarthy reported on this. Even NPR. But the networks, not one of them ran this sound bite. Not one of them pointed out that this is an incompetent Attorney General who couldn't answer a basic, basic question. What's your take on this?

JOHN KING, CNN: Well, let me do it in reverse order. I'll run it Sunday, there's my promise to you and we'll talk about it on "State of the Union." Here's my, I don't like to read minds. We've had this conversation in the past. But, here's my bet, 21 years Washington experience. He knew the answer to the question. He just wasn't going to say it because he did not want, he did not want to be the one saying this is the first time we've ever done this because that adds to the. Look, this is controversial. This is a big deal. This is a risk for the Administration.

Let's say you opinion is fact and correct CD. What damage will come from those trials that have never been tried before in the US? Did Obama, Holder, or any other liberal you stand behind think what damage this will do to our CIA, FBI, and all our military intelligence (that may be an oxymoron. Joke there CD)? How new propaganda will take place after these trials when all we had to do was accept KSM's plea and his death sentence. What's wrong with accepting that plea CD???

Jim, I think it is important to remember what we are protecting here. This is our country, our beliefs, and the legal foundation that this nation was built on. If we cannot use this system to hold accountable our worst enemy to date, what does that say about us? Will there be mistakes? Of course, as there have been through-out history any time a precendent setting event takes place. But these men are scary, they are evil - and they kicked our butts that day. We as a nation deserve the right to see them punished, not in some far off place hidden from view, but in the city that they tried to destroy, in front of all of us whom they hurt unbearably.

It may not be the best option, but it is the one that will allow us to hold our heads high before the entire world. Accepting KSM's plea and allowing him to be put to death to become a matryr for his cause will help no one but the terrorists we are trying to protect ourselves from. We are a strong, proud nation - let's act like it by standing behind the laws we live by.

Do we treat these men as "prisoners of war" or as "unlawful Combatants"?

Since the Congress has not officially declared "war" are we at war?

How was the first attack on the World Trade Center handled, in a court of law or by a military tribunal?

WHY WHY WHY?????

How can our President or any American for that matter think that this is ok?? Why parade guilty terrorists around the destruction they cause NY? They pleaded guilty, accepted the death penality...case closed! why are we trying them?
And WHY are we paying an absurd amount to do it?

I have lost total faith in our government.

CD and Compridious...I would normally respond by repeating Marie R's comment above since this is what the vast majority of Americans say and feel. But let me go back to WWII and the laws from our Constitution which have been upheld by our Supreme Court over German enemy combatants. The below took place in 1942: U.S. Supreme Court
EX PARTE QUIRIN
317 U.S. 1 (1942)

The Government challenges each of these propositions. But regardless of their merits, it also insists that petitioners must be denied access to the courts, both because they are enemy aliens or have entered our territory as enemy belligerents, and because the President's Proclamation undertakes in terms to deny such access to the class of persons defined by the Proclamation, which aptly describes the character and conduct of petitioners. It is urged that if they are enemy aliens or if the Proclamation has force no court may afford the petitioners a hearing. But there is certainly nothing in the Proclamation to preclude access to the courts for determining its applicability to the particular case. "By a long course of practical administrative construction by its military authorities, our Government has recognized that those who during time of war pass surreptitiously from enemy territory into our own, discarding their uniforms upon entry, for the commission of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property, have the status of unlawful combatants punishable as such by military commission. This precept of the law of war has been so recognized in practice both here and abroad, and has so generally been accepted as valid by authorities on international law that we think it must be regarded as a rule or principle of the law of war recognized by this Government by its enactment of the Fifteenth Article of War. "

Jim, I understand what you are saying. I am not going to argue with you. And although you can keep saying that "the vast majority of Americans feel this way...", that doesn't sway my opinion. I do not base my opinions on what "everyone else says".

And Marie, of course they plead guilty and accepted the death penalty. They want to be martyrs for their cause. They want to be executed by the US government, in order to recruit more like them. What better way to ignite their passion then to die publicly at the hands of America for their cause? We cannot give in to that. We must stand firm and hold them accountable within our legal system. To do anything less would be to undermine everything we stand for as a nation.

CD: "We must stand firm and hold them accountable within our legal system?"

Look at what Eric Holder and Co. have planned:
From Newsweek:
"Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged on Wednesday a previously unspoken proviso to the controversial decision to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-conspirators in a federal court in New York: even if the defendants are somehow acquitted, they will still stay behind bars.

Holder's comments at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee would seem to turn the criminal-justice system on its head. The whole point of a criminal trial is to determine guilt—and if the government fails to make its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant walks free.

At least that's the way the system usually works."

So the terrorists, if found "not guilty" remain behind bars? Is that how our legal system won't be undermined? What is the point of trying these terrorists in the first place? To give them a platform? To present a case against Bush? What?

CD...your comment to Marie R is what is wrong with your argument. If they are to be tried in a civilian court, as you wish but most American's don't agree, than pleading "guilty" does NOT require a trial. Am I right or wrong? Why do we have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds for trials when the defendants all said they are guilty? You also overlooked this ruling I gave you. Why?

The Government challenges each of these propositions. But regardless of their merits, it also insists that petitioners must be denied access to the courts, both because they are enemy aliens or have entered our territory as enemy belligerents, and because the President's Proclamation undertakes in terms to deny such access to the class of persons defined by the Proclamation, which aptly describes the character and conduct of petitioners. It is urged that if they are enemy aliens or if the Proclamation has force no court may afford the petitioners a hearing. But there is certainly nothing in the Proclamation to preclude access to the courts for determining its applicability to the particular case. "By a long course of practical administrative construction by its military authorities, our Government has recognized that those who during time of war pass surreptitiously from enemy territory into our own, discarding their uniforms upon entry, for the commission of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property, have the status of unlawful combatants punishable as such by military commission. This precept of the law of war has been so recognized in practice both here and abroad, and has so generally been accepted as valid by authorities on international law that we think it must be regarded as a rule or principle of the law of war recognized by this Government by its enactment of the Fifteenth Article of War. "

Jim, I overlooked your ruling because it is from 1942 in regards to German subjects who were convicted of spying. It was before the Geneva Convention, and it is controversial in this situation, to say the least. I can list just as many quotes and articles that specifically address this ruling and why it has no bearing on the subjects from 9/11. Your point there is mute.

As for this trial vs military tribunal, do you realize that there have been over 100 criminal trials for terrorists since 9/11 under the Bush administration? Were those wrong too, or does this only apply under Obama's term?

CD...there has never been an enemy combatant tried in civilian courts. Ever! Please read my blog and the actual facts and the words from Graham and Holder. I will reprint that conversation again. But please keep in mind that these enemy combatants have admitted their guilt. That alone takes away their right to a trial since they pleaded guilty. There is no reason other than politics to have this trial. The torture inflicted upon the families and those involved during the cowardly attacks on our fellow American citizens by having these terrorists back in NY is a complete disgrace to our country. This is why Obama and the democrats are losing all creditability. The polls aren't wrong.

SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made –

GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.

Jim, your "facts" are your opinion. You do not need to reprint anything. We are not going to agree on this topic. Obama is "losing all credibility" in your opinion, not mine. Polls are indicative of whatever point is trying to be made, depending on how the question is asked. I have stated many times now why I believe this trial should take place in our legal system, and not in a military tribunal. It is obvious that you have your opinions on the topic, and I have mine. And using Lindsey Graham to make a point does not fly with me - it is equivalent with my using Pelosi to make a point with you.

And Jim, do you recognize the name Zacarias Moussaoui? A 9/11 conspirator, who plead guilty but was tried in federal court in Virginia under the Bush administration. He was involved with the planning of 9/11, Jim. That is just one example, feel free to do the research and find some of your own.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/03/moussaoui.verdict/index.html

Christina Democrat...please, please, read my blog before you post a comment!! I asked this of you not only in the above blog but many times when you comment. This is not my opinion when I give you the fact that the terrorists on trial, KSM also, pleaded guilty to charges for the 9/11 attacks and accepted their sentence!! What is so darn hard about understanding these facts? Can't admit the tremendous mistake Obama and your liberals in Washington are making?

The actual exchange between Holder and Graham is not my opinion. Wake up CD and get some honesty and some balance in your life! SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where an enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made –

GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.

I also gave you the Supreme Court ruling the last time the US had this debate whether enemy combatants should be tried in civilian courts. The SC said no to that attempt since all combatants go to military tribunals.

None of this is my opinion or anyone’s for that matter. Graham was correct in letting Holder know something all Americans understand: never had an enemy combatant been allowed to go to civilian courts. Especially if the enemy combatants pleaded guilty. Wake up soon CD!

Jim, face it. Lefties are more afraid of Sarah Palin than they are of terrorists who want to kill us. They bend over backwards to accomodate terorists - give them every comfort of home, plus Korans on top of it - but try to destroy Sarah Palin. Go figure. Does anything in the liberal world make sense?

Jim, you are a fool. You don't read my comments either, apparently. I told you my thoughts on the SC ruling, and why I do not think it is relevant here. The Germans were spying, they did not commit massive murder, and it was prior to the Geneva Convention. Also, enemy combatants can be lawful and unlawful, a distiguishing point that is being argued in relation to the 9/11 suspects. I also gave you an example of where a 9/11 conspirator who plead GUILTY was tried in a civilian court in Virginia under the Bush admin. You chose to ignore that. Let me point out what we agree on here: KSM plead guilty, Holder and Graham had the exchange you posted (twice now), Holder did not know the answer to the question, I understand the SC ruling you keep quoting. Are we straight on this now? No more ranting at me to read your post - or reposting it, please.

You ignore the points that do not correlate with your views. And apparently Graham did not "let Holder know something every American understands...." - if that were the case, we wouldnt be having this discussion. Last time I checked, I was an American, so was Holder and the many others who agree with this trial going forward in NYC, including several families of the victims. I understand we do not agree. You will not convince me your opinion is the correct one, Jim. In fact, the more I get to know you, the more I am safe in the assumption that whatever opinion you have, I am safe to agree with the opposite. The further away from your mind-set I get, the better off I am....

Amy, you are hilarious. On a Sarah Palin kick this week, huh? Like I said on your blog, I love Palin. She is exactly what the Democrats want in a Republican. A polarizing figure that will split your party right down the middle, and send all the independants running to the left. Keep her talking, please. We couldn't have hired a better marketing tool - no pun intended....:-)

CD: Glad I could give you a laugh.

And I noticed you have ignored my last comment asking you to respond:

You stated: "We must stand firm and hold them accountable within our legal system"

Yet, from Newsweek:

"Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged on Wednesday a previously unspoken proviso to the controversial decision to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-conspirators in a federal court in New York: even if the defendants are somehow acquitted, they will still stay behind bars.

Holder's comments at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee would seem to turn the criminal-justice system on its head. The whole point of a criminal trial is to determine guilt—and if the government fails to make its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant walks free.

At least that's the way the system usually works."

So, CD, the terrorists, if found "not guilty" remain behind bars? Is that how our legal system won't be undermined? What is the point of trying these terrorists in the first place? To give them a platform? To present a case against Bush? What?

Amy...you hit the nail on the head about Pailn, liberals, and terrorist!

CD...again, here's what you said. "Jim, your "facts" are your opinion."

The conversation about enemy combatants never being tried in US civilian courts between Holder and Graham is NOT an opinion.

The fact that these terrorist pleased guilty is NOT an opinion.

The fact that the Supreme Court upheld the amendment where enemy combatants are to be tried in military courts is NOT an opinion nor has this law changed since 1942. These are facts. Look in the mirror when you call me a fool. The fool is you since you can't even tell the difference between a fact and an opinion.

American doesn't want these cowardly murders in our courts and neither does our rules of law. Stop defending them and giving them rights no enemy terrorist is allowed in our country. This is an insult to all Americans. You and all liberals should make a statement that this is a huge Obama mistake. But you can't. Sheep got to you.

CD...I too would like you to answer Amy's very simple question.

I've given CD two chance now to explain how our legal system will "stand firm and hold the terrorists accountable," if, as Eric Holder has stated - even if the terrorists are found "not guilty" - they will not be freed.

So - WHAT IS THE POINT? Why has the Obama White House chosen to try terrorists in civilian court - rather than in a military tribunal?

I can answer that, if CD cannot. Obama, Holder, and many other libs could care less if the terrorists are guilty or not. What matters is the show. The spectacle. Aside from the terrorists, Obama and Holder are putting Bush and Cheney on trial. They are also giving in to the wishes of the terrorists to have a platform to diss the United States and speak out against our country. Hey, maybe Obama could chime in, too. He seems good at criticizing America whenever he is on one of his foreign rock star tours....

Amy, I missed your question as I was too busy responding to Jim's rants. But here it is: I am not a legal expert. I do not know the "rules" for court. I do know that I prefer this trial take place in a civilian trial in NYC, as is customary to our laws, in front of the whole world. What you call a "spectacle", I call poetic justice and a rub in their faces. Our laws will prevail, our customs will be honored, and we will not hide behind a tribunal to protect Bush and Cheney's actions. It appears that is what you are most concerned about. Is this yelling all about protecting Bush? Honestly, if along the way of convicting these murderers there is proof found that Bush and Cheney are war criminals (which many people believe to be a fact), then I am totally okay with that. It would be a very happy day for me if Bush and Cheney were punished for everything they did during the past 8 years.

So the point, in my opinion, is about upholding our laws. It is showing the world what this country stands for. It is showing respect for international laws, not rewriting them as we go along like Bush did. It is not giving in to the terrorists desire to be hidden away, tortured, and killed for their cause. It is about following what most every country in this world does - hold a formal trial in the legal system to convict those who have caused terror to their country. Just research history to find this to be fact. Is that answer enough for you?

the only anser to terrirists to kill all them we needed prove ever guilty yo can tell a terrorists by looking at them beards obam is a muslim black muslim like holder theats why they protect them by giving them this trial. kill them all it is what god wants they friends of satan

i realy hate liberals too hopefully god will change them we need to preay hard for them jhayett and amy

"The President, as President and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, by Order of July 2, 1942,2 appointed a Military Commission and directed it to try petitioners for offenses against the law of war and the Articles of War, and prescribed regulations for the procedure on the trial and for review of the record of the trial and of any judgment or sentence of the Commission. On the same day, by Proclamation,3 the President declared that 'all persons who are subjects, citizens or residents of any nation at war with the United States or who give obedience to or act under the direction of any such nation, [317 U.S. 1, 23] and who during time of war enter or attempt to enter the United States ... through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting or preparing to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile or warlike acts, or violations of the law of war, shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals'."

Once again I ask you, "Since the Congress has not officially declared "war" are we at war?"

Should we use military tribunals for drug offenses, too?

War on "drugs", war on "terror", what's the difference for prosecution?

Sorry Christian Dem, your answer doesn't cut it. You claim you want our legal system to work - and if we allow it to, we will. Poetic justice (your words). Yet, (this is from Newsweek so libs will believe it):

"Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged on Wednesday a previously unspoken proviso to the controversial decision to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-conspirators in a federal court in New York: even if the defendants are somehow acquitted, they will still stay behind bars."

So why the trial, CD? Will our legal system be allowed to work? NO. Obama and Holder just want to allow the terrorists a platform for all the world to hear their complaints against the United States. CD: Do you understand - Holder is saying that if the terrorists are found "not guilty" by a jury of their peers (like Keith Olberman and Michael Moore....) they will not be allowed to go free. How does that show the world how our justice system is working? Now try a real answer, not some liberal feel-good fluff.

Really, Amy? I'm done repeating myself. All you do is repost your same response, then ask me the same question. Sorry you don't like my answer. It is what it is.

I'm done with this topic unless you can come up with something new.

Compridious...bin La den declared war on the US in case you forgot.

Here's the entire ruling and about the Constitution for military tribunals back in 1842

"The Court's opinion is inapplicable to the case presented by the present record. We have no occasion now to define with meticulous care the ultimate boundaries of the jurisdiction of military tribunals to try persons according to the law of war. It is enough that petitioners here, upon the conceded facts, were plainly within those boundaries, and were held in good faith for trial by military commission, charged with being enemies who, with the purpose of destroying war materials and utilities, entered or after entry remained in our territory without uniform-an offense against the law of war. We hold only that those particular acts constitute an offense against the law of war which the Constitution authorizes to be tried by military commission...."

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/quirin.html

CD...I too can't find your answer to Amy's extremely simple question. Can you lead me to your answer?

KristianDerecho...thank you for reminding me. I do pray that God remove the enemy within. I even told some of our atheist liberals here that I do pray for them. And in a good and caring ways. My prayers are that they see the light and realize their Marxist change for the USA is not good for the majority even if they believe it's good for them.

I pray that god will take some time away from his attending to johnson's lumbago and pay more attention to the sufferings of decent human beings.

Christian Dem: A simple question and you refuse to answer. One last chance: Eric Holder, the Attorney General, has stated that even if the terrorists to be tried in civilian court in NY are found "not guilty" - they will NOT be released.

So, how does that show the world how the United States legal system works? Explain. One last chance and remember - no liberal fluff!

"Bin La Den declared war on America"? Bin La Den is the leader of what country? I guess, in a round about way of answering my question, you are calling this a war. In that case these men are prisoners of war and the United States has violated the Geneva Convention, Article 17. Since you labeled this a war, Article 84 of the Geneva Convention states, "A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war."

"The Justice Department would still retain the authority to lock them up as enemy combatants."

They would not be aquitted by any jury in the U.S., but if there were the justice department would use the Bush-Cheney policy of indefinite detention of criminal suspects.

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Wednesday, November 25, 2009.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15. This is the second straight day at -15, the lowest Approval Index rating yet measured for President Obama

"As I said in my opening statement: please liberals, read the blog before you comment for a change." - Jim Hayett

What does the daily tracking poll have to do with this blog?

Amy, same question again?? How about you read my response and then we move on?

Why do you have so little faith in our federal court system, that you believe these men will be found innocent? Do you believe there is no evidence to prove their guilt? I am not worried about them being set free, or "not", as Holder stated. I believe they are guilty, and that our judicial system will prove them as such - in a civilian court of law, in front of the whole world.

Compridious...military tribunals have been held up for ever. It's not against a country but an "enemy combatant" as I pointed out in the last challenge in 1942 where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the US and our Constitution to not allow "enemy combatants" in our civilian courts. It's why Eric Holder could not answer Sen Grahams question:SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where an enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made –

GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.

But Compridious, you are ignoring the bigger question. If these enemy combatants are to be tried in civilian courts, why are they being tried in the first place when all of them pleaded guilty and accepted their sentence? Why is that question ignored by every paper and liberal we know? Liberal politics perhaps?

CD...can you do me a favor please? I also cannot find your answer to Amy's very, very simple question. If you wish, send it to me direct and not on this site of you feel embarrassed. But no one has seen or head your answer.

@ Christian Democrat, I would tell them like they have told some of us to go and look for your answer I read it. Jim can go find it himself.

I can’t get over Amy’s reply to you, such arrogance to tell you that your answer isn’t good enough, and get rid of the liberal fluff. But it is typical to a neo-conservative authoritarian.

Onlyoneyou...honestly, I never read or saw where CD's answer is either. Since you know, can you help me so I can stand to be corrected?

Here's Amy question, "So the terrorists, if found "not guilty" remain behind bars? Is that how our legal system won't be undermined? What is the point of trying these terrorists in the first place? To give them a platform? To present a case against Bush? What?" to this Holder statement: "even if the defendants are somehow acquitted, they will still stay behind bars."

Now here's Christian Democrats response: "Amy, you are hilarious. On a Sarah Palin kick this week, huh? Like I said on your blog, I love Palin. She is exactly what the Democrats want in a Republican. A polarizing figure that will split your party right down the middle, and send all the independants running to the left. Keep her talking, please. We couldn't have hired a better marketing tool - no pun intended....:-)"

I'm sorry, but no one see the answer the Amy's simple question. Do you and where?

Onlyoneyou..part II. Now, here's the second comment after Amy and I asked CD for the simple answer to a very simple question: "Amy, I missed your question as I was too busy responding to Jim's rants. But here it is: I am not a legal expert. I do not know the "rules" for court. I do know that I prefer this trial take place in a civilian trial in NYC, as is customary to our laws, in front of the whole world. What you call a "spectacle", I call poetic justice and a rub in their faces. Our laws will prevail, our customs will be honored, and we will not hide behind a tribunal to protect Bush and Cheney's actions. It appears that is what you are most concerned about. Is this yelling all about protecting Bush? Honestly, if along the way of convicting these murderers there is proof found that Bush and Cheney are war criminals (which many people believe to be a fact), then I am totally okay with that. It would be a very happy day for me if Bush and Cheney were punished for everything they did during the past 8 years.

So the point, in my opinion, is about upholding our laws. It is showing the world what this country stands for. It is showing respect for international laws, not rewriting them as we go along like Bush did. It is not giving in to the terrorists desire to be hidden away, tortured, and killed for their cause. It is about following what most every country in this world does - hold a formal trial in the legal system to convict those who have caused terror to their country. Just research history to find this to be fact. Is that answer enough for you?"

Here's Amy’s question. "So the terrorists, if found "not guilty" remain behind bars? Is that how our legal system won't be undermined? What is the point of trying these terrorists in the first place? To give them a platform? To present a case against Bush? What?"

I still don't see an answer. Neither does anyone else. But you do so maybe you can enlighten us perhaps on this day to be thankful?

By 59% to 36%, more Americans say accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in military court, not a civilian criminal court. About half (51%) think the trial should be held somewhere other than New York City. Still, 71% think it’s very likely he will be found guilty.
Read more at GALLUP.com.

Christian Democrat: YET AGAIN - another non-answer! You clearly do not understand the question.

You state: "Why do you have so little faith in our federal court system, that you believe these men will be found innocent? Do you believe there is no evidence to prove their guilt? I am not worried about them being set free, or "not", as Holder stated. I believe they are guilty, and that our judicial system will prove them as such - in a civilian court of law, in front of the whole world."

Well, Christian Dem, you also stated in another comment on this very same post:

"We must stand firm and hold them accountable within our legal system. To do anything less would be to undermine everything we stand for as a nation."

So, before the whole world, we are going to take terrorists to trial in NYC, and if they are found guilty or not, we will not release them. Just HOW does that make the United States legal system look to the rest of the world? You know, that legal system where if people are found "not guilty" - they walk away? They are considered "innocent?"

It doesn't matter one iota whether or not YOU personally think the terrorists will NOT be found NOT guilty. That isn't even in play here. What is is that this a a show trial. Little more than giving terrorists a platform to express their hatred of America. If we are not going to release them anyhow, why bother?

Please explain, CD. You haven't been able to yet.

Give up Amy. Liberalism has no room in their agenda to admit wrong or apologize for their lies or vile attacks inflicted on those that don't follow their ideology.

Yes Jim, you are a good one to talk about vile attacks and lies. Good one.

And Amy, it is obvious you do not like my response, so to you I have not given you an answer. So, perhaps this one will suffice for you:

The only reason to hold a trial in NYC is to broadcast evidence to the world that Bush and Cheney are war criminals - so we can hang them in the town square.

Does that make you feel better?? :-)

CD..."The only reason to hold a trial in NYC is to broadcast evidence to the world that Bush and Cheney are war criminals - so we can hang them in the town square." If they were remotely close to war criminals, they would have been impeached and tried long time ago. None of this is true and Americans know this. This is why I say you are so brainwashed and caught up with the MSM bs that's bankrupting the print and TV media. And it's why nearly 70% don't agree with you and don't want Obama's show trial at all. Did you forget that recent poll number?

They are war criminals and should have been impeached. The problem is the liberal Democrats don't have the cajones to do the job. Look at the statements that the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld administration made to justify the attack on Iraq versus the truth that came out after the invasion. Lies and more lies to get the Congress to go along with the war. And now Cheney accuses Pres. Obama of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. He accuses the Pres of the US of being a traitor. If their was any one who was a traitor to the US, it would be former US VP, Dick Cheney. 5 deferments to get out of serving in the Vietnam War.

ref33...I think you had too much tequila. After you read Obama's statement, watch, again, the video of all those you voted for all stating we must take out Saddam. How do you forgot so soon?

"I've never said that troops should be withdrawn. What I've said is, is that we've got to make sure that we secure and execute the rebuilding and reconstruction process effectively and properly, and I don't think we should have an artificial deadline when to do that."

Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois)
During an interview on "Chicago Tonight" with Elizabeth Brackett
April 5, 2004

http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#bE2hIPfbAg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHEIi4XKRmM


http://brianakira.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/clinton-kerry-gore-call-for-war-against-saddams-iraq/

ref33...please, please, be the first liberal to tell us how you ignore your own liberal democrats and the truth. I mean they all said the same thing Bush said and intell from the administration before Bush! Here's just a few.


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998


Come on ref33, look at these dates!!!