Obama Administration halts prosecution of USS Cole bomber

[Moonbeam]

We could have solved all these trial problems so easily if we had just declared war on Al-Qaeda.

We have these problems only because the right winged swine with shit for brains Republicans elected the criminal George Bush who thought it would be a really great idea to water-board people. So now the only Constitutional avenue we have is to let a psychopath killer go free back to where he will pick up where he left off. Ain't gonna happen!

 

[Moonbeam]

I wish this was just a discussion about abstract principles, but it's not. We don't have rules about legal evidence because they sounded fun, we have them to protect the rights of the accused, not all of whom are actually guilty of what they are being accused of. Casting those rules aside because doing so makes it easier to prosecute SOME people also makes it easier for the government to prosecute everyone. If trials for accused terrorists allow evidence obtained via torture, for example, that allows for trials of innocent people who were tortured into confessing.

What makes principles worth upholding is that they protect something real, they aren't just intellectual exercises for a civics class.

Principles don't fuck you in the ass. Justice doesn't mean injustice.

 

[LunarRay]

We could have solved all these trial problems so easily if we had just declared war on Al-Qaeda.

A state of war can exist among Nations but it is rather difficult to identify Al Qaeda which as far as I know is simply 'A List'. We said we are at war with terrorists... does that mean the IRA and Osama's boys or just Osama's crew?

I think, but don't know for sure, that the major issue with these terrorist folks in indicting them is getting evidence into the process. IF as Moonbeam mentioned, Water Boarding was used then that becomes a problematic issue regarding anything that flows from that... It also opens up for the Defense the ability to call witnesses and documents and what not to confront the introduction of evidence... Not something some might want having in open court.

 

[Rainsford]

We have these problems only because the right winged swine with shit for brains Republicans elected the criminal George Bush who thought it would be a really great idea to water-board people. So now the only Constitutional avenue we have is to let a psychopath killer go free back to where he will pick up where he left off. Ain't gonna happen!

But if it did happen, who do we blame, the waterboard squad or the law?

Personally I'm in favor of laying the blame at the feet of the people who knew the consequences of engaging in extra-legal methods of interrogation and decided to go ahead anyways. It's not like they put us in a legal position that was a complete surprise. They KNEW what the problems would be, and did it anyways.

In other words, the debate about two "sides" we're having now totally ignores that one perspective is based entirely on explicit disregard for the rules. It's not the fault of the law that it's written the way it is, it's the fault of the people who decided breaking it would be a consequence free affair.

 

[Rainsford]

Principles don't fuck you in the ass. Justice doesn't mean injustice.

I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about, but principles are all we've got that separates us from them. I really feel like people don't understand that...not even a little bit. What makes America worth defending is that we have these ideals that we uphold, and our enemies mostly don't. If we abandon them in our pursuit of victory, we won't have on jack shit.

 

[LunarRay]

I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about, but principles are all we've got that separates us from them. I really feel like people don't understand that...not even a little bit. What makes America worth defending is that we have these ideals that we uphold, and our enemies mostly don't. If we abandon them in our pursuit of victory, we won't have on jack shit.

On the home planet Moonbeam would be saying... "It is injustice to have a murderer go free... all cuz we (Bush) violated the principles we all hold sacrosanct or should be maintained in our actions regardless of the downside... Waterboarding may lead to the exclusion of evidence or taint the evidence that does get in... but, aside from that... why are they in Federal Court... with all the rights of a citizen attaching?.." But, wait... the sun is in the third quadrent... so maybe not!...

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about, but principles are all we've got that separates us from them. I really feel like people don't understand that...not even a little bit. What makes America worth defending is that we have these ideals that we uphold, and our enemies mostly don't. If we abandon them in our pursuit of victory, we won't have on jack shit.

Nobody believes that more than I do, with some caveats, as I mentioned.

We already compromised our principles. We water-boarded this dude who was guilty of mass murder with a religious belief justifying him doing it again. He is a psychotic, a deeply evil person, somebody whom, if we had followed our principles we would have easily convicted in a court. But we didn't do that. Bush tortured his ass and left him for Obama to figure out what to do with. Now just picture what happens when Obama lets a mass murdering Muslim go based on airy fairy principles. The right would grind him in the dirt. And, and, get this, why wouldn't they, letting a mass murder go so he can kill again is simply stupid regardless what your principles are. The highest principle is not to kill innocent people. Next in line, therefore, is don't let a mass murderer of innocent people go on a technical. There is nobody with a drop of common sense in the world who isn't going to know that letting somebody go to resume the killing of innocent people is unprincipled regardless of whatever other principles are involved. You have to follow the highest principles even when they conflict with your own, if some asshole like Bush puts you in a corner. Being right in the real world holistically is better than being technically proper. We already violated our principles. You are asking we go down hill from there.

Look, suppose you know somebody has planted a nuclear weapon somewhere in NYC and you have an hour to find it and you got the guy who knows where it is. You follow the Constitution and a few million people will be dead.

 

[LunarRay]

Look, suppose you know somebody has planted a nuclear weapon somewhere in NYC and you have an hour to find it and you got the guy who knows where it is. You follow the Constitution and a few million people will be dead.

I vacillate on this issue and have for some time... I don't know what I'd do in that case until it is right in front of me...
Today, I'd probably find out where that nuclear weapon is one way or another and our friend the terrorist would not make it to trial anywhere... I'd send him home... well, sort of... He'd end up on his home soil if the wind didn't blow him off course from 30,000 feet up...
Yesterday, I'm not sure nor am I sure about tomorrow... but today, I'm sorta thinking that first come the rights of my citizens and then the terrorist's rights... the none that I'd avail it off...

 

[werepossum]

Common criminal is enough of a classification to handle mass murderers, mafia members and domestic terrorists, I don't see any reasonable argument that it can't handle terrorists. They're not supervillians...

For me, it comes down to this: either we believe in the rule of law or we don't. If we do, then we need to try terrorists according to our laws. If we don't, they we should stop pretending we're in favor of any principles beyond convenience.

Should we then fight wars according to the same rules? Can we drop bombs on enemy soldiers, or shoot then, before they have been convicted in a court of law of some crime against US law and exhausted their appeals? Frankly, that line of "reasoning" is simply asinine except in those few cases where US citizens or legal residents are arrested within the USA. In that limited case, then I would agree that suspected terrorists deserve to be handled in accordance with US law and should be tried or freed.

We could have solved all these trial problems so easily if we had just declared war on Al-Qaeda.

This is so, so true. All this discussion about whether this is a legal war, and by what rules it should be fought, could have been ended (and still could be ended) by Congress enacting a simple resolution baldly stating "We declare war on al-Qaeda and its allied groups." That there is no language spelled out for a declaration of war does not excuse couching them in mealy-mouthed double speak, and we should all lean on our Congresscritters to state all bills, but especially those involving deadly force, in clear and unambiguous language rather than Lawyerese.