Landmark terrorism trial ends in acquittal on all but one count. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/11/17/ny.terror.trial/?hpt=T1
Congressman Peter King (R-NY) calls the verdict rendered by a 12-person jury in a trial presided over by a respected federal district judge a "miscarriage of justice." Liz Cheney, Dick's brat, called on the Obama administration to "reverse ...course [on trying alleged terror suspects in the federal court system] ... and use the military commissions at Guantanamo." ... Where to start this rant?
Congressman Peter King (R-NY) calls the verdict rendered by a 12-person jury in a trial presided over by a respected federal district judge a "miscarriage of justice." Liz Cheney, Dick's brat, called on the Obama administration to "reverse ...course [on trying alleged terror suspects in the federal court system] ... and use the military commissions at Guantanamo." ... Where to start this rant?
First, it's good to know that the Judicial branch is indeed co-equal with the Legislative and Executive branches in terms of rabid (and vapid) Republican animus and hyperbole, and that this verdict, too, is Obama's fault. Even though the conspiracy conviction alone carries a minimum sentence of 20 years in federal prison, and even though prosecutors obtained it with their hands tied by the inadmissibility of much of the evidence given the illegal means by which it was obtained during the suspect's detention.
Second, since it opened Guantanamo has housed 770 detainees; more than 580 of whom were released without charge, including more than 530 who were released while Bush was POTUS after no doubt enjoying a years-long, all-expenses-paid-by-the-A
Third, in June 2006 the United States Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld held that the military commissions violated U.S. law and the Geneva Convention.
Finally, statements and other "evidence" obtained from a suspect by coercion or, you know, torture, are not admissible; they're not evidence.
If dipshits like Congressman King and Liz Cheney want to blame someone for not-guilty verdicts in alleged terror suspect cases, they aught look no further than the CIA and military personnel who tortured detainees with the explicit authorization of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, thus insuring that any statements or other "evidence" obtained could not be admitted for use at any trial. And if they want the trials conducted in a venue which has been ruled by the Supreme Court to violate U.S. law and the Geneva Convention, then they know nothing of or have a naked contempt for U.S. and international law. If there were crimes for ignorance and stupidity, it is King and Cheney who would be guilty, and I would volunteer my time pro bono to be part of the prosecution.
A lively exchange on this entry occurred on facebook between my good friend Mark, a conservative, and me. It deserves to be included here.
ReplyDeleteMark:
I define torture as having to read this pablum (hahaha) could not resist. You are the left's version of Ann Coulter on the right, both passionate and adamant in their belief that they are right and the other side is crazy. As to Gitmo, out...side of the torture thing how is this any different than the camps that Asian citizens went through during WW2? Do you loathe FDR as much as you do Bush and Company. By the way, why is Gitmo still open, why are we still in IRAQ and Afghanistan? Weren't these promised to go away in the campaign? What did O find out that now he is not so quick to close it down? Why dosen't the media keep reporting on the deaths in these countries any more? Was that to help a certain party/candidate? Lets be consistent in our call for logic and justice and not just over look your guys lies or broken promises.
Eric:
ReplyDeleteYou are establishing a rhetorical pattern, mon ami: First argumentum ad hominem, followed by a feint that doesn’t directly address, let alone disprove, my argument or the evidence and reasoning on which I make it, but rather shifts the focu...s to your POV. Classic rhetorical techniques. Is Ann Coulter even still around? Or, assuming she hasn’t changed since last I heard anything from her ages ago, has she become too moderate as compared to this 21st century tribe of culture warriors--Beck, Palin, Angle, Bachmann, Barton, Gomert, Paul, Joe Miller, Jan Brewer, Jim DeMint, etc? I will address your questions directly. 1) Guantanamo is still open for a couple reasons. Sadly. First, Congress voted against the funding to close it. Obama kept his promise insofar as he tried to close it. The Administration, in a stupid move, however (typical Democrats’ tactical ineptitude), requested funding to close Gitmo before they’d put together a plan to deal with the detainees. Congress, not surprisingly, said no. Of course, our schizophrenic electorate is largely to blame for that. We can’t have people of the ilk of terrorist suspects locked up on US soil in maximum security prison facilities, can we? You won’t allow that, right congressman? Classic NIMBY syndrome. Second, and equally importantly, other countries have almost unanimously rejected and continue to rebuff the State Department’s efforts to get detainees’ home countries to take them back. See, e.g., http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/20/close-guantanamo-funding-senate-obama. 2) Iraq. Obama promised during the campaign to end the war in Iraq. Promise kept. See, e.g., http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/iraq/. “Combat operations” ended a couple months ago, and the last of “combat” troops left. See, e.g., http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11147300. “Combat” troops is, arguably, a misnomer. 49,000 troops with real guns and real bullets remain in Iraq as a residual “advise and assist” force confined, I believe, mainly to the Green Zone. So the potential for “combat” or skirmishes still exists. But, having sunk the blood and treasure into Iraq that we have, the pragmatic reality is that maintaining such a force on the ground is probably necessary. 3) Afghanistan. Obama has been consistent all along on Afghanistan. See, e.g., http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/afghanistan/. Training by US forces of Afghan security forces has ramped up under Gen Patraeus’ command; meanwhile Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke continues diplomatic efforts with the Afghan and Pakistani governments. A drawdown of US forces in Afghanistan is slated to begin in 2011. 4) Casualty reporting. I don’t buy your assertion that they’re not reported. To the extent you perceive that we don’t hear about casualties in Iraq, it’s because under the current arrangement and since 2009 there have been fewer than 10 per month. (See, e.g., http://icasualties.org/iraq/index.aspx , and (old, but relevant) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/casualties/2009-05-02-may-toll_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip and http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm). I hear weekly on NPR and elsewhere of the on-going casualties in Afghanistan.
Mark:
ReplyDeleteIsn't that homonym? I do not see answers to my points only excuses. As to Ann Coulter, I have not seen her since my work outs on the treadmill focus more on my fantasy football info shows, ESPN or the classic rock concert films. I will rebu...t your points that merit a response!
Closing Gitmo - come on he ran hard on this and now you tell me he had no plan? Empty chatter from a candidate? Dems controlled congress and he still couldnt do it? 2) This is just like that famous "political advisors' position we took in Vietnam in the early 60's. Lets see isn't this just like "mission accomplished"? 49,000 armed consultants are you really going to fly that up the proverbial flag pole? I ding the Repubs too on the old see I told you the surge would work, I always say well why in the hell didnt you do that in the first damn place then? Casualty reporting - You and I both know the tenor of this has changed dramatically, the drumbeat was consistent and steady, unlike now. Sadly mi amigo, the left will always make excuses for their inconsistent policies and actions and the right will as well, some of us just refuse to drink the kool aid!
Eric:
ReplyDeleteLOL! Homonym. No, it's hominem. They are almost homonyms!
Mark:
ReplyDeleteGlad to see you have not lost your sense of humor.