BO and the democrat majority once again show the USA just far out of
touch with reality they are.

Terrorism amendment dies in Senate
By: Josh Gerstein
November 5, 2009 07:28 PM EST

The Senate rejected a move Thursday to block the BO administration
from using ordinary federal courts to prosecute those alleged to have
plotted the Sept. 11 attacks.

On a 54-45 vote, the Senate tabled an amendment from Sen. Lindsey
Graham (R-S.C.) that would have left military commissions as the only
option for prosecuting Sept. 11 suspects.

All 40 Republicans supported the amendment, along with Sen. Joe
Lieberman (I-Conn.) and four Democrats: Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), Sen.
Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Sen. Mark
Pryor (D-Ark.)

Graham said the measure, offered as an amendment to the annual
appropriations bill for the Commerce and Justice Departments, was needed
to head off what he said were plans by the BO administration to send
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others allegedly involved in the Sept. 11 plot
to trials before civilian courts in the U.S.

“These people are not criminals. They’re warriors — and they need to be
dealt with in a legal system that recognizes that,” Graham said. “Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, did not rob a liquor store.”

“The attacks of 9/11 were not a crime. They were a war crime,” Sen. John
McCain (R-Ariz.) said.

Some Democrats flatly disagreed, arguing that military trials could play into
the Al Qaeda operatives’ claims that they are fighters in a holy war against
America.

“They are criminals. They committed murder,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said.
“These are not holy warriors. They are criminals.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said it was
bizarre to declare that the 9/11 suspects couldn’t be tried in federal court,
but everyone else in the world could be, at least potentially.

“That’s Alice in Wonderland justice. It makes no sense,” Leahy said. “Are
we going to tell the world [that] we’re not up to trying people who struck
at us?... Our courts, our prisons are more than up to the task.”

The BO administration vigorously opposed the amendment and insisted
that officials retain the option to decide whether a civilian or military forum
best suited for a particular case. Last week, Defense Secretary Robert
Gates and Attorney General Eric Holder sent senators a letter warning that
Graham’s proposal "would be unwise, and would set a dangerous
precedent." (read more)

Oh poppycock! Do you even read articles before you go off?

Maybe I'm just a tad jaded, but sometimes your posts read like you have a quota of slaps you need to get in on your president and mine, and you're feel an hour or three behind to boot.

Sec. of Defense Gates, hardly some leftie loon, and you know this, advised Senators that Graham's posturing for only military tribunals was not a good idea, calling the notion "unwise" and noted passage "would set a dangerous
precedent."

Try not to fear the use of your justice system. It works rather well all in all.

That's sure telling him, thank God, and thank you.

Nope, I don''t think ole prune and a few other righties do. I'm noticing a conservobot trend in that direction.

But BO stinks don't ya know!

Yes. I read it. If you don't like the article, then fine. I found it very good.
As far as Gates goes, I don't agree. This was an attack on the USA and it
needs to be handled by the military.

As usual, I will never expect BO and his democrat majority to do anything
that's in the best interest of the USA. They haven't yet and they don't
show any sign of changing.

I love how the republitards like to gloss over the fact that it was a republican in the White House when 9-11 went down. For all their whining and sulking, just remind them of that fact.

Why did GWBush allow 9-11 to happen? He must surely have hated America and Americans.

No, it was because he was stupid. Didn't you watch David Letterman's regularly appearing segment called, "Great Moments in Presidential Speeches" before it finally had to come to an end? It made our country look pretty damned bad. I don't give a damn if it was meant to be funny, rather than a disgrace to the country.

Common sense folks

__________________
Dr. Spaceman: Now Jenna, medically speaking for your height your weight puts you what we call the "disgusting" range. Fortunately there are solutions. For example, crystal meth has been shown to be very effective. How important is tooth retention to you?

Still, as much of an anti-Obama fanatic as you are, you should have been able to come up with something better to make Obama look bad.

Maybe our resident lawyers can chime in. It seems to me that with insurgent type terrorism, neither a civilian or military court seems to work. The Islamist terrorists know no borders, don't have a country allegience and don't follow law other than their own version of Islam. They can go out and blow up a day care full of babies, send mentally-challenged people or women or children into crowds strapped down with explosives just as easily as they can mow down soldiers waiting to deploy to Iraq. Is a new type of court system called for to handle these cases?

Sorry to answer a question with a question, but why would a separate system be needed to determine if a particular act contrary to law has happened?

To me at least, whether someone is Muslim, Baptist, Atheist, Druid, Wiccan, Agnostic, Bubba, or Mary Sunshine may or may not be relevant to why someone committed the crime of X.

However, the 'why' isn't generally one of the elements which must be proven to determine whether X happened and who did X if it happened.

The 'why' may influence the punishment befitting an act, but it doesn't alter whether the act happened.

It's a Military crime. It's the Military's responsibility to resolve all military
crimes.

Apparently a lot of people are unfamiliar with the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm

HAVC - you were a Marine, why do you not know this?

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

Although I didn't serve in the military, I'm very much aware of what takes
place on the US bases all over the world. How? Prunette served for 30
years and I have many friends who are currently serving or have served
and retired from military service. A close friend of mine was a Viet Nam
chopper pilot that retired as an Army Colonel. Another is a General of the
Air Force. I've also been to many military bases in the world. We hope to
be as US installations in Germany and England in the next few months.

I've found many of the members to be ignorant of anything that doesn't
concern their job description. In fact, many members are shocked at the
thought of going to battle. Believe it or not, they think of the military as a
free ride without commitment or responsibility. I'm at Tinker AFB and the
WRANG at least once a month and I'm very much aware of what is going
on.

In short, just because somebody was in the armed forces doesn't mean
that they know what the military is all about.

Are you considering any act of an insurgent, irrespective of target and location, to be a military crime? If so, we can agree to disagree on what constitutes a military crime and move on. My blankie doesn't spread quite that far.

Why is it that the military can gun down a terrorist in the commision of a nonlethal act or even bomb an outpost taking out insurgents as well as the local washer women in the vicinity as an act of war, but if you capture them, they would be entitled to trial in a federal court with all the protections that come with that?

So you think that because you are married to someone who used to be in the military and have some military friends and have been on a few bases youy actually know what's going on in the day to day lives of the members?

Guessing from your posts, you were quite likely of draft age during vietnam. So tell us prune, why were you not drafted? And better still, why did you not volunteer? Sure, it's lots of fun trapsing around military bases as a civillian and offering the opinions of an armchair general, isn't it prune?

The military is a microcosm of American society. So you get the same type of people within as without. You have the brilliant, the not so brilliant, the ambitious and the not so ambitious. They even have petty theives, rapists and murderers. That's just a fact, so you have made absolutely zero observations thus far that anyone with reasonable powers of observation could not have made.

The fact is you never lived it. Tell us why.

9/11 happen under Bush
Bush stinks
Teabags stink
Republicans stink.
Bush is from Texas
Texas has oil.
Saudi Arabia has oil.
Arabs are in Saudi Arabia.
Arabs are Islamic.
All Islamic people are terrorists
Republicans are Terrorists.
See how stupid that sounds..
Goobers...

What does the OP have to do with the UCMJ?

The UCMJ would only cover POW's in the custody of the military, and those POW's would be subject to the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Article 89).

So are you saying terrorists are automatically classified as POW's?

IF he was like me, he simply didn't agree with the foreign and military policy the United States had conducted. Because it just didn't make sense for the U. S. to send up to 500,000 troops to fight the menace of communism in southeast Asia while at the same time allowing communism to go on just 90 miles from our shores, thanks to an agreement with the USSR that should have never been made, so that Cuba could be free of communism today and hopefully free of spies against the U. S.

Or was like me and was simply a 'tweener. Because someone wasn't in the military doesn't mean they can't have military opinions. They may be wrong or ignorant of the military but they have just as much right to their opinion as any 30 year Marine veteran.

Didn't Tim Mcveigh get a fair and just trial for his military crime? I have never heard any one say otherwise.

...and here we go again with the double talk of the GOP. They don't want new laws for "hate" crimes -- they say that all murder is hate. They don't want new gun laws, because they say we should just enforce the new ones we have. The list goes on and on.

Yet they want a new style of court for "terrorists." Should Eric Rudolph be tried in the new tribunal?

1. It wasn't a military crime. It was a citizen of the USA committing a crime
against the citizens of the USA.
2. According to the Constitution, he should have been tried in the county in
which the crime was committed, i.e. Oklahoma County.

If you're worried about terrorism I think you should also make a big deal out of equally likely ways to die. Like falling onto a knife in an open dishwasher or choking on a hot dog or getting hit by a falling piano.