A classic case of arguments that can't hold up under even a small amount of scrutiny... which is why it's lucky for McCarthy that he can largely just hide out in the Corner, getting supportive pats on the back.

"Of course, KSM isn't a "war criminal" if he's guilty, he's just a criminal -- a mass murdering criminal, but there's no need to elevate him to the status of warrior."

Wrong, whiz kid. You're not a lawyer. Neither am I. But it is obvious these terrorists are war criminals having committed an illegal act of war, not just a crime that can be adjudicated in any court of law. Anyone with a brain, which leaves out every single solitary leftist blowhard, understands calling KSM a war criminal doesn't elevate his status.

I keep wondering about the bed-wetting fear by the leftists of trying these Al Qaeda vermin in a military tribunal. After all, it isn't as if these scumbags were ordinary criminals like speeders, thieves, or even mafioso, those who require the civil rights necessary to defend themselves in court.

In fact, it seems like the bed-wetting leftists seem to fear the idea of what a warrior. This fear exists because the bed-wetting leftists don't know what a warrior actually is. Just so you know, a warrior is not someone who commits illegal acts of war, such as those committed by KSM and the other vermin.

Understand it now?

@SteveAR

Wow, guy, incoherent much? The only bed-wetting-like behavior I see in all this is coming from the "conservatives" and "patriots" that seem so a-scared to let our system of justice do what it is supposed to do. The amount of projection here is just so precious.

Here is that Thomas Paine quotation once again: "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

This is not complex, dense legalese.
This is not cloying, flowery prose.
This is simple, evident truth.

@SteveAR

Thanks for making sure the opinion of chickenhawk wimps is given a fair hearing.

Jacob,

I love how you leftists pervert the words of the Founders for your own benefit. Read that quote again. KSM and the other vermin are being guarded against oppression, an oppression they'll get from the Obama and Holder kangaroo court.

Being tried in a military tribunal, with all the rules that go with them, is not a "violation of that duty." But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be prosecuted as war criminals in the only venue for such an activity, a military tribunal. After all, other terrorists are being prosecuted that way; there's no reason these five shouldn't be prosecuted in a tribunal then. It's worked for others convicted and executed or sentenced to extended prison terms by a tribunal: John Andre, Henry Wirtz, Richard Quirin et al., Tomobumi Yamashita, and those convicted in Eisentrager.

Hell, Holder couldn't even justify his actions with any legal reasoning. You know why? Because none exist. He's making it up.

The fear is yours and anyone else who says these tribunals won't serve the cause of justice. Mr. Serwer doesn't even know what a war criminal is, thinking it elevates such a criminal to the status of warrior. Had he a clue, he would know this isn't the case.

If this is true: "KSM was ready to plead guilty and be executed eleven months ago."

What makes Mr. McCarthy think think KSM won't plead guilty when he enters his plea?

I'm tired of America wetting its pants at the mention of "terrorist". It's time to get back to being Americans again. Trying them, in US courts, in a good first step.

consumetheconsumer:

"I'm tired of America wetting its pants at the mention of "terrorist". It's time to get back to being Americans again. Trying them, in US courts, in a good first step."

I'm tired of leftists wetting their pants at the mention of military tribunal. Trying terrorists there as war criminals does not do anything to reduce the liberties for the rest of us.

Trying terrorists there as war criminals does not do anything to reduce the liberties for the rest of us.

You STILL haven't answered why you think KSM is a military actor and not, say, a terrorist like Tim McVeigh. He allegedly plotted to kill Americans. The FBI helped to make the case. Again, how is this any different than McVeigh?

Moreover, as Hamdan states, these military tribunals are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Do you really not know that or understand it? The only way KSM could be tried under military rules would be if was afforded Geneva Conventions protections -- which, I'm sure you read, he wasn't (which is also something you gutless fucks celebrated). So essentially, your plan is to either try him illegally OR simply "disappear" him like just another authoritarian coward who finds the rule of law to be inconvenient when you are particularly afraid of the defendant. Which is it, champ?

@SteveAR

I fail to see how treating other human beings, however criminal they may be, as human beings and quoting Thomas Paine to support such a stance is a perversion of his meaning here. This is the very core of his meaning and the soul of our justice system. Sure KSM is not a citizen, but if we extend him our rights of the accused and we still nail him (and we will) then we will win not only his conviction, we will show ourselves first, and the world second, that we are indeed a nation of laws, a nation of justice.

As for fear, keep projecting guy. It is so very precious.

Jay B.:

You STILL haven't answered why you think KSM is a military actor and not, say, a terrorist like Tim McVeigh. He allegedly plotted to kill Americans.

Because it isn't just KSM. It's KSM, and OBL, and Ayman al-Zawahiri, and thousands of other foreign terrorist vermin who have physically declared war on the U.S., although the U.S. waited about 3 years before taking that declaration seriously. We kill terrorists now in Afghanistan and Pakistan without the terrorists getting the benefit of a trial. Those are actions taken during a war, and that is because what KSM et al. did was commit an act of war themselves. It was a war crime because the 9/11 attacks were an illegal act of war.

McVeigh and that other doofus who was charged with him weren't engaged in a similar action (an act of rebellion) since they were the only ones involved; there weren't thousands of McVeigh followers doing the same thing.

Moreover, as Hamdan states, these military tribunals are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Do you really not know that or understand it?

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Hamdan allowed for Congress to create legislation authorizing tribunals, which occurred with the 2006 MCA. While Boumediene threw out the habeas parts of the MCA, the Supreme Court did say the tribunals themselves could occur. Answer me this wiseguy: if the Supreme Court had declared tribunals unconstitutional, why are Obama and Holder going to use them for some terrorists?

The only way KSM could be tried under military rules would be if was afforded Geneva Conventions protections -- which, I'm sure you read, he wasn't (which is also something you gutless fucks celebrated).

Bullshit. KSM was afforded all the Geneva Convention protections he deserved. He wasn't tortured (unlike what that vermin KSM did to Daniel Pearl), he wasn't brutalized, and the Bush administration didn't make him go away ("disappear" him).

KSM and the other Gitmo terrorist vermin would be dead and buried by now after being judged fairly by a military court if the cowardly leftists hadn't lied about what these terrorists did. The 9/11 attacks were an illegal act of war committed by war criminals, not just an illegal act of terrorism by a criminal like McVeigh.

It was these same bedwetting leftists who used fearmongering to say military tribunals would crush the civil liberties of all Americans. As with everything else, it was a lie. And you were dumb enough buy that lie.

@all minus SteveAR,
Constitutionality = bedwetting. I'll wet the bed, and save myself the headache of arguing with "Warrior".

Jacob:

Sure KSM is not a citizen, but if we extend him our rights of the accused and we still nail him (and we will) then we will win not only his conviction, we will show ourselves first, and the world second, that we are indeed a nation of laws, a nation of justice.

We already are a nation of laws and justice. We would still be if we try KSM in a military tribunal, under those rules, convict him, and execute him. Because war criminals would not be subject to civilian courts wouldn't change that. That's because war criminals committing illegal acts of war should never be tried in regular civilian courts.

I fail to see how treating other human beings, however criminal they may be, as human beings and quoting Thomas Paine to support such a stance is a perversion of his meaning here. This is the very core of his meaning and the soul of our justice system.

Let's assume you aren't perverting Paine's words. Then why are we killing Al Qaeda terrorist war criminals in Afghanistan and Pakistan without the benefit of a trial?

Let's assume you aren't perverting Paine's words. Then why are we killing Al Qaeda terrorist war criminals in Afghanistan and Pakistan without the benefit of a trial?

For the same reason that police sometimes shoot bank robbers during a bank robbery.

@SteveAR

KSM is arguably a war criminal. That means that reasonable people can disagree on his status as a war criminal. Given that, do we have another appropriate venue to try him? Oh why yes we do! It is our federal courts. AND GUESS WHAT STEVE?! Our courts have tried other terrorists (we don't disagree that he is a terrorist do we?) and they have had greater success doing so than our tribunals!

Assuming that we convict KSM (I do so assume, for what should be obvious reasons) he will have met justice without it possible to argue that he was tried unfairly. I submit that it would be easier for the American citizens and the world to discount our justice (and hence, our motives in the wider world) if it was administered through military tribunals because KSM is arguably not a war criminal.

Sophist:

For the same reason that police sometimes shoot bank robbers during a bank robbery.

Your name is appropriate. And your explanation is complete sophistry.

Jacob:

KSM is arguably a war criminal.

It isn't arguable. He can be charged under every subsection of 18 U.S.C. § 2441, passed in 1996. But here's what's interesting. Osama bin Laden declared war on the U.S. in 1998. After that, Al Qaeda committed the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. Even though then U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White mentions this declaration in the indictments, she never charges anyone, not even bin Laden, with a war crime as defined in the statute. Neither was Zacarias Moussaoui as shown in his indictment, a failure of the Bush administration.

What's even more interesting, leftists have already convicted, without the benefit of a trial, the Bush administration of violating this same statute, but refuse to acknowledge that the terrorist vermin should be charged under that law. I call that hypocritical.

As Sen. Graham asked Holder yesterday, when have (alleged) war criminals been tried in U.S. civilian court? After Holder sputtered like a dork, Graham gave him the answer: never.

Assuming that we convict KSM (I do so assume, for what should be obvious reasons) he will have met justice without it possible to argue that he was tried unfairly.

Holder's already having the military prosecute a bunch of terrorists in the tribunals. Using your theory, that means KSM and the others are going to be judged fairly while the others won't. So what you say doesn't make any sense since, again using your theory, Holder and Obama are showing the world and worse, the American people, they are opportunistic authoritarians politicizing justice in order to garner convictions; some terrorists will be treated like ordinary criminals, while other terrorists are treated like war criminals. How is that showing anybody that they are being fair?

@SteveAR:

http://www1.nysd.uscourts.gov/operations/history.pdf

Explain to me again how nthe fu**ing Southern District Court whose first njudges were appointed by George f***ing WASHINGTON is now a kangaroo court?

Please.

Explain.

Still not sure why 9/11 is an act of war instead of just terrorism.

Traditionally, an "act of war" was an act that could be interpreted as a sign that the country of origin for the actors intended hostilities against the country victimized by the act. War would be the means by which the attacked country would defend itself against the attacking country.

For 9/11 to be an act of war, a country must have caused it. In fact, we know quite well that it was caused by people who owe no fealty to any sovereign government. We can't go to war with that country and ask them to make the terrorists stop. Nor can we assume that the enemy combatants are soldiers who are innocent of breaking the laws that govern them, which is one of the reasons that wars are fought regardless of what happens to the combatants.

In short, 9/11 looks nothing like an act of war, and exactly like an act of terrorism. If "war" is associated with it, this is only because President Bush insisted that only the solemnity of war described his campaign to fight those who attacked us at 9/11, and that the armed conflicts of the future would involve more such campaigns. These propositions may deserve consideration, but they don't give him the right to redefine "act of war" by fiat, and they don't give you that right either.

Finally, an anon i could have a beer with.

http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html

"b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Any requirement?
Like a declaration of war?
Maybe?

Terrorism is committing an act of violence to induce terror and thereby advance a political goal. Is that what the Ft. Hood shootings were? What was Hasan's political goal? Let's wait until Hasan says what his motives were before labeling it terrorism.

Jacob:

KSM is arguably a war criminal.

It isn't arguable. He can be charged under every subsection of the 1996 War Crimes Act (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html ). But here's what's interesting. Osama bin Laden declared war on the U.S. in 1998. After that, Al Qaeda committed the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. Even though then U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White mentions this declaration in the indictments (http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html ), she never charges anyone, not even bin Laden, with a war crime as defined in the statute. Neither was Zacarias Moussaoui as shown in his indictment (http://www.justice.gov/ag/moussaouiindictment.htm ), a failure of the Bush administration.

What's even more interesting, leftists have already convicted, without the benefit of a trial, the Bush administration of violating this same statute, but refuse to acknowledge that the terrorist vermin should be charged under that law. I call that hypocritical.

As Sen. Graham asked Holder yesterday, when have (alleged) war criminals been tried in U.S. civilian court? After Holder sputtered like a dork, Graham gave him the answer: never.

Assuming that we convict KSM (I do so assume, for what should be obvious reasons) he will have met justice without it possible to argue that he was tried unfairly.

Holder's already having the military prosecute a bunch of terrorists in the tribunals. Using your theory, that means KSM and the others are going to be judged fairly while the others won't. So what you say doesn't make any sense since, again using your theory, Holder and Obama are showing the world and worse, the American people, they are opportunistic authoritarians politicizing justice in order to garner convictions; some terrorists will be treated like ordinary criminals, while other terrorists are treated like war criminals. How is that showing anybody that they are being fair?

I'm unimpressed with Mr. Holder's idea that the trial should be carried out in NY. I see the trial as having a secondary effect; to open up our sovreignty to scrutiny of the world. I don't think he and Mr. Obama have a clue as how they are creating a really dangerous precendent being attorneys and all...giving KSM an opportunity to become Al Qaeda follower's poster boy for martyrdom is embarrassing and downplays the sacrifices made by so many.

Good post.

most Americans aren't actually privy to how haphazard the military commissions are--they're essentially a new legal system invented from scratch to try detainees against whom we have dubious evidence or only intelligence information. The adjective "military" may give them a certain sense of authority for those who are unaware just how poorly the process has worked so far compared to federal courts, but this is misleading since the DoJ's civilian lawyers are actually more experienced in trying terrorism cases. http://www.watchgy.com/