Daniel Pearl's Father Slams Obama's Decision To Try 9/11 Mastermind In NYC

are you still "doing" your kids?:hw:

Okay Mike, in an attempt to remain civil, we'll leave it at that...

*cough* *cough*Three prominent hard-core right-wingers, former congressman and presidential candidate, Bob Barr, American Conservative Union chairman, David Keen, and Americans for Tax Reform president, Grover Norquist, are not only defending the administration's decision to try and imprison terrorists on U.S. soil but also said, quote, "The scaremongering about these issues should stop." *cough*

The Supreme Court has held that Al Qaeda is to be held according to the Geneva Conventions. That is just a fact.

We cannot now just pretend that never happened and then reverse ourselves.

By bringing criminal charges for wartime activities we violate the Geneva Conventions.

Do we want our soldiers to be dealt with in this manner, in future wars? Captured U.S. Troops turned over to civil authorities for crimes?

No... the Geneva Conventions require that captured enemy be held by the Military. NEVER by civil authorities.

Don't forget that you are dealing with an administration that re-wrote bankruptcy law earlier this year. Why not make this up as they go along as well, right?

The contradiction in all of this, as you said, lies also with the Gitmo detainees who will either be tried in a military tribunal or will be held indefinitely as Obama outlined months ago.

The 5 who will be tried in NY is all about putting the Bush Administration and the CIA on trial.

This is probably your greatest red herring ever, stumpy. As opposed to what, stumpy? Being executed without benefit of trial?

the only people I hear saying that are Bush supporters. Why do you keep bringing up the ex-president? :burst:

Right....

Maybe you can answer the question you have been avoiding.

WHY...if conviction is meaningless, (as you essentially admitted by agreeing that these terrorists will be held indefinately regardless of outcome), why try them in a venue where it is much more likely that national security secrets will be released, as happened in the past.

Remember, civility rules the day.

Do you seriously believe this? Do I appear to be someone, just from my posts and time on this board as someone who has no sympathy for the families of that terrible day Zimmie? I have lost a spouse, not in that way, but loss is not measured, it is mourned and grieved and only people that have suffered a loss can truely sympathize, others can empathize, but until you have lost someone, unexpectedly, far far to early, you can't know. Maybe you have, I don't know.......that would make this even worse.

My family sacrifices everyday, we are a military family, we are proud to do it, please don't make blanket statements about how liberals feel and think because we disagree on an issue. It is insulting to military families across this nation. Many of them liberals.

As for terrorist sympathizer......please. I have no sympathy for anyone who has done what they have done and continue to do, however, I believe in human rights for all, even the condemned. Not because I care about how comfy they are but because that's who we are. We are the United States of America. We are supposed to better than that.


This statement of yours is wrong and mean and just an awful thing to say to anybody and shows YOU are nothing more than a judgemental, mean little man.

Wasn't Moussaoui tried in a federal court, and he's in a supermax now, so why is trying a terrorist without a military tribunal such a big threat now?

Secondly, and more importantly, what's the big security threat?If KSM was so obviously the 9/11 mastermind, present the evidence. There should be lots of it. Perhaps the fear is that confessions were coerced, or worse that the evidence won't hold up.

I suspect the real reason there is so much resistance to these trials is because deep down, there is a lot more to the story than members of the previous administration would like us to know.

No conviction is meaningless -- if that is your interpretation then I'm sorry you were mislead.

And, I'm not convinced that the NY southern district court is "a venue where it is much more likely that national security secrets will be released." I understand that that idea is "popular amongst a particular group of people" but believe that it is not entirely true.

Civil enough?

(you realize this is going nowhere, right?)

And what does the Geneva Convention say about TORTURE???

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!!

You're right Stumpy, string 'em up!

:burst:

No way! I'm sure the troops would much rather be TORTURED than be given an open trial...

:drool::slice:

I agree, and I think it scares the people that supported that administration unconditionally. They may find out things they do not want to know.

Pure genius, Stupid!

They shouldn't worry, your messiah is doing a good job of keeping all of that secret.

not

So where's your beloved Sensai Stumpycunt, Stupid? Or should I call you Capt. save a hoe?

:burst:



Stupid-Fat-Boi
Swallowing Stumpy's Member

To The Rescue

.

He pled guilty in Federal Court.

He was never held as an enemy combatant.

He should have been.