Obama advisers set to recommend military tribunals for alleged 9/11 plotters

[angelicwoman]

Source: Washington Post

Friday, March 5, 2010

President Obama's advisers are nearing a recommendation that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, be prosecuted in a military tribunal, administration officials said, a step that would reverse Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s plan to try him in civilian court in New York City.

The president's advisers feel increasingly hemmed in by bipartisan opposition to a federal trial in New York and demands, mainly from Republicans, that Mohammed and his accused co-conspirators remain under military jurisdiction, officials said. While Obama has favored trying some alleged terrorists in civilian courts as a symbol of U.S. commitment to the rule of law, critics have said military tribunals are the appropriate venue for those accused of attacking the United States.

If Obama accepts the likely recommendation of his advisers, the White House may be able to secure from Congress the funding and legal authority it needs to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and replace it with a facility within the United States. The administration has failed to meet a self-imposed one-year deadline to close Guantanamo.

The administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said the president's legal advisers are finalizing their review of the cases of Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators. Asked about the process, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that "no decisions have been made."

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/04/AR2010030405209_pf.html

---

We will soon find out whether our President is Barack Obama or Rahm Emanuel.

[ShortnFiery]

1. Weak LEADERSHIP from both the POTUS and Justice Department Personnel.

I'm embarrassed and ashamed that we can't try KSM in a USA Federal Court.

Shame on the gutlessness of our "illustrious" Executive Branch.

I could not be more ashamed of them. :thumbsdown:

[angelicwoman]

2. In fairness, we don't know what Obama will decide yet

I believe he show them who's the boss.

[ShortnFiery]

4. In objectiveness, he's sure to build consensus so that he doesn't have

to EVER take a principled stand.

Being of super high intelligence does not give one the capacity of MORAL COURAGE.

I'd rather have Obama sacrifice 15 or so of his super-pragmatism IQ points and have it morphed to -conviction to follow through with actions that are MORALLY SOUND despite the fallout. :grr:

[madokie]

33. Did you vote for Obama?

serious question

[Hell Hath No Fury]

49. I voted for him.

I sent him money when I didn't have much, I campaigned for him. I voted for him.

And I feel exactly as she does. :mad:

I spent the Bush years cataloging all the bullshit he was engaged in -- actions that were morally and legally wrong. And here I am, one year into a Democrats administration and I am seeing far too many of the same morally and legally wrong actions.

Just because the guy has a "D" after his name doesn't mean I hang up my duty as an American to make sure justice is served and our leaders are held accountable.

To do otherwise would make me no better than the worst Bush apologist.

[No Elephants]

63. +1 Will email the WH again, though I don't think they pay any attention.

However, I will not blame him for something he has not yet done.

[No Elephants]

64. I did. It's possible to be very disappointed in someone for whom you voted.

[spotbird]

47. If past is prologue,

we do know what Obama will decide.

[conservdem]

52. I am glad about this.

[No Elephants]

69. Self delete.

[warm regards]

56. I'm not...

[JudyInTheHeartland]

3. Probably a trade for health care votes... smart move by Obama team.

If this gets health care passed, I'm all for it.

[ShortnFiery]

5. What? Do you have any inkling of how morally unsound your statements are

... on many levels. It's just, forgive me, wretched and vile.

I can't believe that America has almost fully morphed into a Police State. :(

Because Congress has NOT declared war, we have no solid LEGAL ground to JUSTIFY military tribunals.

[JudyInTheHeartland]

6. I'm sorry, but I'd rather provide health care to the poor...

and could give a shit about where KSM is tried.

Get your priorities straight, and start worrying about your fellow men and women who are suffering without health care.

[angelicwoman]

13. wait a sec...if you don't care about where KSM is tried...why did you bring up health care?

Why did you originally pretend that you only support sending KSM to military tribunals if this is an exchange for health care reform support? You said, "

"If this gets health care passed, I'm all for it."

Now turns out you don't "give a shit" about the trial venue anyway.

[saigon68]

55. This board is loaded with straw man producing

DLC directed members and types who swill at the public trough(with their huge govt benefits) during the day, and like cock-roaches come out at night, to "educate" and argue with us (the great unwashed).

[Hell Hath No Fury]

48. And you have a Dennnis Kucinich avatar?

One of the only men who has spend the half a dozen years trying to STOP shit like military tribuals?? :wow:

[alarimer]

58. It is disgusting to sell principles for a few votes.

We have a fucking Constitution that is supposed to apply for trials, etc.

And people are willing to throw that away for some piece of shit health care bill that will not actually help but will actually make things worse.

I hate this piece of shit president quite possibly more that that asshole Bush.

Obama is a spineless weasel and I am sorry I voted for him. He will NEVER get my vote ever again. Fuck him, and his fans. They all suck.

[No Elephants]

66. "And people are willing to throw that away for some piece of shit health care bill..."

I don't know of any evidence that military tribunal was a quid pro quo for health care "reform." For all we know, it's simply yet another cave in to the most vocal, loons on the right, which enables them to run the country, even though they lost in 2006 most Democrats find unwelcome.

[angelicwoman]

8. the quid pro quo is "help me close Guantanamo and I'll use military commissions"

That's common knowledge. It's in the news article and it has been reported previously.

[ShortnFiery]

11. Bullshit! Obama is the President. He doesn't need Congress to close GitMo.

This is all Kabuki Theater supported by the MSM and you are gullible enough to believe it?

Don't kid yourselves, Obama, if he WANTED TO, could get a great deal accomplished.

TO INCLUDE placing "single payer" on the negotiation table from the start.

We are being punked and if the HORRID bill from the Senate becomes law, it's going to be a long cold winter for The Democratic Party.

The only upshot is that we will not have CORPORATISTS within our democratic ranks IF/WHEN we arise from the ashes.

[tabatha]

23. He cannot close Gitmo if he does not have the money to do so.

The lack of money is holding it up.

Congress defeated a bill to provide the money.

Yes, he DOES need Congress.

[No Elephants]

70. What about the money in the budget to run Gitmo? Besides, it's not as though government budgets

don't have room in them. They are padded like we don't even want to know, especially military budgets.

[No Elephants]

68. .Supposedly, nothing bad goes on in Gitmore anymore anyway--it's only symbolic now.

If that is true, is trading votes for a now empty symbol really that much of a defense/excuse/rationale for to ditching our nation's founding values?

If someone wants to argue that the Tighty Whitey Kid has no legal right to a conventional trial, fine. All else is bs, IMO. Either it fits within the Rule of Law or it doesn't.

[PurityOfEssence]

54. Sheer fantasy

More chess-playing assumptions.

[Odin2005]

60. NOTHING justifies violating humabn rights!

:puke:

[No Elephants]

65. "Probably?" Any actual basis for that claim?

[TomCADem]

7. Political Suicide To Try A Civilian Trial ... Look at the Underwear Bomber

Liberals and Democrats left the administration out to dry over a civilian trial. Where was the back-up from the base when President Obama tried to hold a simple trial on a slam dunk case?

Even folks on this board were attacking Obama for trying to resort to civil trials.

[ShortnFiery]

9. Doesn't ANYONE care about what is morally sound rather than cheap ass political points?!?

My God, what is wrong with my beloved country?

Have you sold your souls ... for IRRATIONAL security promises?

[customerserviceguy]

12. Your gimmicky "trading card" is factually inaccurate

It shows parts of the original Constitution being lined out, but the actual Bill of Rights didn't exist until way after it was written.

Look, we all can acknowledge that KSM will never be set lose on the streets, and if by some bizarre twist of fate he would be, it would be VERY damaging to the President. I really don't care if a foreigner who never set foot on our soil gets his Constitutional rights (if he's really entitled to them) in a civilian courtroom or a military tribunal, as long as he's either put away for life, or simply dispatched in front of a firing squad.

[ShortnFiery]

28. Here's another that might include you. "Foreigner"? I hope you don't travel overseas

or CHECK your "Ugly American" attitude within the states. :puke:

[customerserviceguy]

30. Yes, foreigner

And I don't travel outside of the US, except for Canada, where I was born. I realize I would be subjecting myself to the justice system, such as it is, of any government that I dared to trod upon the soil of. And if I tried to kill their citizens from afar, I'd expect them to come after me with both barrels blazing, too.

[alarimer]

61. You are so fucking ignorant.

You are actually proud of never leaving the US or Canada. That is something to be ASHAMED of. Typical ignorant American hayseed.

The Constitution, if you have ever bothered to fucking read it, applies to all human beings, whether they were born here or not. Read it and learn something. It might clear up some of that ignorance you suffer under.

[No Elephants]

74. Dummya never left the U.S., either, before 2000. Hence the name "incurious George."

The reason our laws exist is to protect law abiding folk, not to protect criminals.

The Framers, who were not morans by anyone's standards, realized, in their astuteness and wisdom, that you cannot protect the innocent unless you protect everyone. And, under the Patriot Act, your distinction between traveling and being in the U.S. may not be as pivotal as you seem to think it is.

Besides, no matter where you may find yourself, you have a right to expect a nation to act consistently with its own laws, whether domestic or internation (including treaties to which that nation chose to make itself a party). If it doesn't, it is not a nation that is under the rule of law. That is not what most of us want for the U.S.

[ShortnFiery]

29. Constitutional Rights are, in essence, HUMAN RIGHTS.

Shame on any American who doesn't want to set the highest standards for Moral Integrity.

We are no better than the people we call "foreigners" or "savages" if we VALUE American lives over the rest of the World community.

Shame on those of US who would abuse "foreigners" and/or see Americans as more precious.

Those of us who believe in God would *BLESS AMERICA FIRST - are IMO, The UN-AMERICANS.

[customerserviceguy]

31. I feel assured that KSM will get his human rights

in a military tribunal, far better than he respected the rights of the people who died or were injured on 9/11.

[No Elephants]

67. The same is true of every criminal tried in conventional criminal courts.

Just as The Framers insisted.

And neither has a thing to do with treaties, the Constitution or the rule of law.

[No Elephants]

73. Too late to edit, but the last sentence of tthe prior post does not express what I intended.

I meant that the fact that every criminal gets better rights in trial than s/he gave his or her victim(s) does not have a thing to do with SATISFYING the requirements of treaties, the Constitution or the rule of law.

[No Elephants]

72. YOUR statement is the one that is factually inaccurate.

The Constitution was ratified on the express condition that the Bill of Rights would follow quickly--and it did.

Besides, was the poster supposed to scour the internet for a graphic with redactions only in the Bill of Rights, as opposed to the unamended Constitution, or everyone was supposedly going to be misled somehow? The point was deleting Constiutional rights. We all got that point, including you. And the poster did not create the graphic to begin with. However, your post may have actually misled someone on the facts.


"Look, we all can acknowledge that KSM will never be set lose on the streets, and if by some bizarre twist of fate he would be, it would be VERY damaging to the President."



For some, it's always all about Obama. However, we had a country long before Dummya and Obama. And the reason it's lasted until 2000 as well as it had was the Constitution. Bush ignored whatever provisions he deemed inconvenient. We elected Obama to reverse that. The Constitution is what Americans must preserve at all costs, not the Bush legacy or the Obama legacy.



"I really don't care if a foreigner who never set foot on our soil gets his Constitutional rights (if he's really entitled to them) in a civilian courtroom or a military tribunal, as long as he's either put away for life, or simply dispatched in front of a firing squad."


You're missing the point. The issue is whether Tighty Whitey Kid has a legal right to a convention criminal trial or not. If he does have such a right, that needs to be the end of the discussion.

Moreover, assuming the outcome of the trial to be conviction, followed by life in prison or execution while speaking of Constitutional rights also misses the point. Don't follow the lead of some in the Obama administration on that bad practice. No matter what, we have a right to a presumption of innocence, unless and until proven (in some legal body) guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, whether Tighty Whitey Kid has the same right is a separate question. But talking about Constitutional rights in the same breath with a firing squad makes my head spin.

There are good legal reasons why even indisputably guilty folks get released, or put in a mental hospital instead of in the electric chair. Miranda rights, prosecutorial misconduct (see, e.g., Holder dropping charges against Ted Stevens), etc.

[bullwinkle428]

79. You DO realize that a number of suspected terrorists that were

tried via military tribunals have been found not guilty, and are now running free somewhere in the world, right?

[TomCADem]

15. Absolutely, And We Need To Support The President When The Media...

Is out there trying to give away our rights. The underwear bomber case was slam dunk, yet NY Democrats hung President Obama out to dry on a civil trial. If we sit on our hands and let President Obama get eaten alive for trying to stand up for rule of law on an easy case, then where are the liberals and the Democrats on the issue?

On this board, there was rarely any acknowledgement of the political heat President Obama took, yet we took it for granted just like folks take HCR for granted, and think that single payer would have been easy with some snazzy PR campaign despite folks like Bart Stupak and Lieberman trying to kill any HCR from within.

[ShortnFiery]

16. Newsflash: The President supports Big Pharma and the Insurance Cartel first. eom

[TomCADem]

18. This Is What I Mean, HCR To Expand Coverage To Millions, And "Liberals" Side With The GOP

There is this pipe dream that President Obama is right of the majority of members of Congress when in truth is more progressive than the majority of them. In some alternate reality, Democrats like Bart Stupak and folks like Joe Lieberman would vote for single payer. I guess if we wish real hard, Bart Stupak, the Blue Dogs, and other conservadems would support single payer.

Look at the House. Even Nancy Pelosi had to throw abortion rights under the bus to secure enough votes.

[ShortnFiery]

27. Nancy Pelosi is a CORPORATIST ... these are NOT true LIBERALS.

You've misidentified these vultures as progressives and/or liberals. Again, they are CORPORATISTS through and through.

[No Elephants]

75. President Obama is a New Democrat. Rahm and vast majority of people

Obama hired are DLC, New Democrats or simply those who back Obama, no matter what.

Your examples oof Lieberman and Stupak kind of suck, in that you chose the extremes.

Lieberman was one of the original members of DLC and is no longer even nominally a Democrat. He campaigned publicly for McCain Palin, ffs. Stupak is the only Democrat I know of who is C Street.

Besides, we have no way of knowing what would have happened in this country if, from Day One, Obama had lead strongly AND given more than lip service to Medicare for all or a strong public option, instead of giving away Medicare for all during the primary, then giving away the store to Big Health--and not on C-Span, either--before this process even started.

It's much too easy to say, after all the sell out, wishy washy and clusterflock, that this is the very best that the Democrats could ever have done, no matter what. Easy, yes, but, again, it won't wash with folks who were actually paying a modicum of attention. If the approach had been strong, smart and principed, a lot more would have been accomplished.

Oh, and stick your "liberals" label. When McConnell and his ilk claim that Obama is governing from the hard left, they are lying and they know it. And Democrats who claim that classic Democrats are liberals are telling a very similar lie. The Democratic Party does NOT consist of DLC, New Democrats, Third Way, etc., plus liberals, period.

The Democrats used to consist of two principal groups. Democrats and the left wing of the Party. The left wing consisted of liberals and a very small minority of those who actually are socialists, every Communists. That small minority, still small, doesn't even tend to call itself Democratic anymore; and most of the liberals of the 20's and 30's went the way J.Edgar Hoover and McCarthy wanted them to go. That left mostly those who were simply Democrats.

The most recent wing of the Democratic Party is the center right wing--The DLC, New Democrats, Third Way, Blue Dogs, etc. they are the innovation. The rest of us are simply Democrats who are not center right.

Dean got it right. He is from the Democrat wing of the Democratic Party--the one that has existed for well over a century. The DLC and its progeny are the innovation, the offshoot, the ones who are not from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. And, like their brothers and sisters, they throw around terms like "liberal" and "Socialist," inaccurately and intend them as slur words. And Democrats see that transparent device for what it is.

[angelicwoman]

17. This board is overwhelmingly in favor of civil trials

Virtually NOBODY here wants military tribunals for 9-11 plotters.

See discussion from a month ago: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x180546

[No Elephants]

76. Thank you.

Inasmuch as that was a month ago, though, I have a slightly different view.

IMO, this board was overwhelmingly for a criminal trial in a civilian court only when all of DU thought Obama and Holder were both behind that concept. At that juncture, only those here who seem always to agree with Limbaugh opposed criminal trial in a civilian court.

With this new suggestion--that Obama may resort to a military tribunal, DUers may be more divided between those who back what they think is the correct thing and those who back Obama and his peeps, no matter which way Obama and his peeps seem to be leaning at any given moment. Hence, this thread may evidence greater division than did earlier threads on the exact same issue.

[warm regards]

57. The Bill of Rights does not apply to KSM.

[No Elephants]

77. In your opinion.

[Odin2005]

62. The Obama-bots think it's OK as long as he does it.

[saigon68]

10. The successors to these 2 clowns are still running the country

[No Elephants]

71. BALONEY. Liberals everywhere, including this board, supported a conventional criminal trial.

I can't speak for conservatives who post here.

That said, I don't really understand the obsession with what gets posted on a message board anyway. Only what happens in real life really matters. However, liberals, both in real life and on DU did support the conventional trial.

Try telling your Noodles clone Democrat-hating version to folks who don't pay attention. Maybe it'll fly.

[LiberalFighter]

14. Advisers need to be canned.

I hope Prez Obama acts forcefully and slaps down all the dumbass military tribunal supporters.

[No Elephants]

78. Who chose those advisors inititally and confirmed that choice every day since by NOT firing them?

Sorry, blaming Rahm or other advisors does not work. They are there to take the heat off Obama whenever they can, but we all know where the buck stops.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alp227]

20. Well too bad there's little evidence that military tribunals even work.

And there's much more compelling evidence favouring CIVILIAN TRIALS, which the BUSH Justice Dept used most times and successfully convicted Zac Moussaoui and "shoe bomber" Richard Reid among numerous other suspected terrorists. The unfortunate fact about Gitmo tribunals is that of all 3 convicts, 2 are now released, and the other suspects have been in indefinite detention. Plus, a conviction by military tribunal is more likely to be overturned given the post-Civil War Supreme Court case Ex Parte Milligan (1866), which ruled that habeas corpus applies whenever civilian courts are in operation.

[SnakeEyes]

22. What do you mean by..

don't work? In what way don't they work?

[alp227]

24. OK, to clarify, I mean that the military tribunal system has been sluggish

Think about what Vice President Biden said on Meet the Press a couple weeks ago.

Under the Bush administration, there were three trials in military courts. Two of those people are now walking the streets; they are free. There were 300 trials of so-called terrorists and those who had engaged in terror against the United States of America who are in federal prison and have not seen the light of day, prosecuted under the last administration.

So that's my point: I wonder why Obama is sucking it up to clueless right-wingers who don't know a bit what the hell they are complaining about whenever they attack the administration for doing exactly what the good ol' American conservative hero Bush did!!

[tularetom]

21. WH hack advisors 1, apolitical justice dept attorneys 0

President Emanuel has decided it would be too politically risky to do the right thing and show the world we are still a free country.

[No Elephants]

82. Noodles is not POTUS..

[shellgame26]

25. Seems like they're hearing too much from the other side

All day long the sold out media goes on and on with the r/w talking point about military tribunals. They know Americans are too exhausted to fight for this issue. Here's my email to whitehouse.gov

To Whom It May Concern,

I was extremely disheartened to learn today from the Washington Post that The White House is leaning towards military tribunals for 9-11 suspects. I believe this kind of capitulation towards the relentless pressure by the GOP to continue to thwart the constitution will not only result in a loss of faith with regard to your leadership but will also erode the goodwill the United states has regained since the election of president Obama.
I strongly urge that you resist the pressure from the GOP and continue to do what is right for the American people.

Thank You.

[pundaint]

26. I didn't read the full report on the President's physical, did they find any testicles at all?

[No Elephants]

80. Oh, SWOON, you weddy stwong, bwave man, you!

[madokie]

32. For some reason when I see this I just move on

"The administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity"

[No Elephants]

81. Treating things couched like that as though they already happened is unwarranted.

However, experience with many administrations, including Obama's, tells us that things couched like that may be fiction, or they may be trial balloons, or leaks that were intended by the POTUS, or leaks that were not intended by the POTUS.

When I see something I don't like couched in those terms, I write my representatives, just in case. Especially, in this case, where a reaction to public opinion might be in play.

I cannot be as loud as Rush Limbaugh, because I don't have his platform. But, I would at least email the WH to say I hope this is not true, so the WH does not forget that not all of us are in lock step with Limbaugh and McConnell.

[JCMach1]

34. WH considering military trials for 9/11 suspects

Source: AP

In a potential reversal, White House advisers are close to recommending that President Barack Obama opt for military tribunals for self-professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four of his alleged henchman, senior officials said.

The review of where and how to hold a Sept. 11 trial is not over, so no recommendation is yet before the president and Obama has not made a determination of his own, officials said. The review is not likely to be finished this week.

Officials spoke Thursday on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss private deliberations... The Washington Post first reported that a recommendation for a military trial is almost ready.

"If this stunning reversal comes to pass, President Obama will deal a death blow to his own Justice Department, not to mention American values," said American Civil Liberties Union Anthony D. Romero. "Even with recent improvements, the military commissions system is incapable of handling complicated terrorism cases and achieving reliable results. President Obama must not cave in to political pressure and fear-mongering. He should hold firm and keep these prosecutions in federal court, where they belong."...

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hnJeJR0lPSQqA1dSZs1k7_BYkn4AD9E8EKPG0

---

Oh bother... full circle :(

[doc03]

35. Looks like Dick Cheney won n/t

[DrDan]

36. once again - yielding to the GOP

[Bluebear]

37. So simple, even a man who caves can do it.

:)

[bullwinkle428]

38. This is nothing more than caving in to the wing-nuts - I don't care

how much anyone tries to spin this! :banghead:

[msongs]

39. slackers just can't make up their minds, maybe another study for a year or 200 is needed nt

[DirkGently]

40. What's really going on here?

The recent rush of activity on this issue strikes me as odd. Did anyone catch the (likewise) odd, "Rahm was right about everything (including trying KSM in a military tribunal) and Obama should have listened, 'Washington insiders say' " story on MSNBC recently? Seemed out of left field.

Why the sudden pressure on this? The public doesn't seem to be too lathered up either way -- if anything, I'd say the move for civilian trials has done well in public debates. It's hard to argue that civilian courts cannot deal with suspected terrorists when they have done that successfully many times, vs. the tribunals at Gitmo which appear to have ground to an incompetent halt in most cases.

Is it just that the intelligence community fears what the defense will bring up in terms of his treatment, e.g. waterboarding? Really?

Sorry, spooks and Mr. Cheney, but that cat's mostly out of the bag already. I think the public wants, and needs, to see this trial, and despite all these "the momentum is shifting" stories, I think trying to make the trial secret now would be a huge mistake. It would be a clear message that Cheney et al, were "right" on this issue, not to mention the poor track record of military tribunals in dealing with suspected terrorists. They're just not set up to deal with it.

This is another critical moment for the administration to establish those "not sacrificing our principles" and "transparency in government" planks it ran on, vs. looking like Rahm and the GOP Appeasement Team are running things. There is no upside to "taking civilian trials off the table."

[zipplewrath]

41. Exactly

Something is going on here, and we'll never know what it is. Obama has thrown in his reputation with the tortures. He's advocated allowing the SoD to classify the torture photos, he told the folks that committed the torture he "had their backs", he reserved the right in his executive order to authorize future acts of torture even while directing that they currently be stopped. He backed off on the trial in NYC, and now is backing out of even having a civilian trial. I'm dubious that Gitmo will ever be closed.

He ran on all of this crap. Heck, McCain ran on some of this. He's got military folks telling him that Gitmo is a problem for them in the field. He was moving towards building a new Gitmo right here in Illinois. And yet everything is moving in the other direction. Me thinks some high level dems are guilty of being involved and now Rahm wants to protect them. I'm sure anything else would be "retarded".

[Mr. Sparkle]

42. I am embarrassed to be a Democrat right now.

It looks like our ideals are been eroded by our own leadership. If you cannot try someone fairly in court then what's the point? It is something you would expect to see in a tinpot dictatorship or even under Bush.

[salguine]

43. Help me! I'm being crushed beneath all this change!

[Captain Hilts]

44. On the Kornheiser radio show, Tony and panelists are angry about this.

Tony notes that not even Eugene Robinson can defend this.

I, too, am disappointed. We're supposed to be the Good Guys.

I'm anxious to hear why they've made this decision.

[Doctor_J]

45. Do they think the repukes will play nice if they capitulate on everything?

:wtf:

[Bolo Boffin]

51. Is this what all the "Rahm was right" articles have been about?

Is the White House trying to claim its noble principles and sacrifice them, too?

[The Stranger]

46. Divided, divided, divided . . . always divided.

[mopinko]

50. rahm?

the military industrial complex does not need rahm emmanuel to carry water for them. they were there before rahm, they will be there after rahm.
they have no intention of actually allowing barack obama to be CiC.
there are some things we the people just do not run. and wont run, as long as fear and hatred are the order of the day.

[lsewpershad]

53. If the admgoes back on it's word why should anyone ever believe them again?

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

83. Three issues:

1/ On the substance, the one issue is whether a civilian trial is legally required or not, period. Either we are a country of laws or we are not. If it is legally required, case closed. If it is not legally required, it's within the discretion of the Executive Branch.

No matter what, kow towing to the loudest voices, simply bc they are the loudest, is strategically ill advised. Until now, they've been saying Obama is weak unless he goes with a military tribunal. If he does go with a military tribunal, they will say he's weak bc he wavers, and they will cite this as an example of wavering. They may qualify it by saying they agreed with the ultimate result, but they will still use it against him.


2/ This is anonymous information about what might happen, not a sourced announcment of what will happen. It may or may not be reliable.

3/ If it is accurate or not, email the WH saying you read the story and then state whether you agree or disagree with using a military tribunal in this instance. Make YOUR voice heard, so the voices on the right are not the only ones resonating in the WH.

[Xenotime]

84. WTF?!?!? Is Bush still running the country?!?

[bamacrat]

85. Couldn't they have a hybrid?

Have the trials off shore but use federal judges and lawyers and jurors. Then it would appease all.

[Snazzy]

86. ACLU full pager in NYT today

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aclu/4412616626/sizes/m/

Yeah I know, they supported a narrow aspect of Citizens United on sound principle, throw them under the bus! :sarcasm:

Oh, on edit: a pretty good pragmatic argument if you ask me on their blog:

3 vs. 319

Today's Washington Post tells us that advisors to President Obama are telling him to reverse Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to send the 9/11 defendants to federal criminal court, and send them back to the military commissions system.

There are only two numbers you need to know in this debate over where the 9/11 defendants should be tried: three and 319.

Three is the number of people who have been convicted in the military commissions system. Two of the men convicted in the military commission system are free today.

Compare that to the more than 300 who have been convicted on terrorism-related charges in our federal criminal courts and are incarcerated in federal prisons.

President Obama promised during his campaign to bring those behind the 9/11 attacks to justice, and to restore the rule of law. Send him a message now, telling him to support his attorney general's decision to try the 9/11 suspects in federal court.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/3-vs-319