DOJ has decided against civilian trials for 9/11 suspects.

[dgibby]

Will opt for Military Tribunals at Gitmo, instead, according to both MSNBC and CNN.

[bemildred]

1. Gee, who could have predicted this? nt

[EFerrari]

2. Shocking.

[Democracyinkind]

3. The whole Guantanomo thing is a scam anyway. nt

[wildbilln864]

4. WTF!? nt

[leveymg]

5. All the better to keep the chirade safely isolated and away from public notice.

Who the hell will want to try to cover this thing? Any idea what it's like just to get permission to travel to Gitmo?

[defendandprotect]

11. +1000% --

[BeFree]

13. Yep

There are certainly secrets which would be exposed in any fair trial, and those secrets must be kept as secrets so that empire may continue. In the one 9/11 trial so far, secrets were revealed uncovering the facts that some employees of empire did, in fact, work to conceal and cover up and obstruct any investigation of the 19 hijackers who then were allowed to freely roam the US in the year before 9/11.

[GodlessBiker]

6. The only conclusion to draw is that whatever evidence they have would appear to a jury to be ...

crap and unworthy of belief, that is, if the judge first decides that it is not the result of coercion or torture so that the jury can hear it at all.

[defendandprotect]

12. +1000% --

[jaxx]

7. House Blocks U.S. Trial Of Guantanamo Detainees

12/ 8/10 09:52 PM

WASHINGTON — In a setback for President Barack Obama, Democrats still controlling the House have approved legislation to prevent Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other detainees at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay from being transferred to the U.S. for trials in criminal courts.

The Guantanamo ban was included in a huge catchall spending bill that passed the House Wednesday by a 212-206 vote. The Senate has yet to act on the legislation, which would further imperil Obama's effort to close the detention center for terrorist suspects.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/08/house-blocks-us-trial-guantanamo-detainees_n_794185.html

The DOJ wanted them tried in US courts, the congress said no.

[TheKentuckian]

9. The Congress doesn't get to decide anymore than they would if you were accused of an offense.

Congress is not empowered to hold anyone without charges, to order a military tribunal, or to dictate indefinite detention.

Congress doesn't get to say that you don't get a trial because they don't want to pay for it. The power of the purse does not supersede natural and enumerated rights and there is absolutely no such thing as an extra-constitutional authority under our limited form of government.

[jaxx]

10. Defense Department lawyer asks Congress to retain civilian court option for detainee trials

Defense Department lawyer asks Congress to retain civilian court option for detainee trials

Associated Press

Last update: March 17, 2011 - 4:39 PM


WASHINGTON - The Defense Department's general counsel on Thursday urged Congress to allow the Obama administration to use civilian courts as well as military commissions to prosecute detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Jeh Johnson said a Republican bill to virtually remove the civilian option would make it more likely that courts would step in when detainees challenge their detentions.

"Let's not take options away from the military and the national security apparatus. Let's not take away the Article 3 (civilian court) option," Johnson told the House Armed Services Committee.

http://www.startribune.com/nation/118185489.html

[TheKentuckian]

14. Okay but does not address my thoughts and also demonstrates

the administration is trying to "thread the needle" by using some of the absurd attempts at Kangaroo courts which reinforces Bush's global battlefield, at war with a tactic nonsense.

[jaxx]

15. House Blocks U.S. Trial Of Guantanamo Detainees

House Blocks U.S. Trial Of Guantanamo Detainees

ANDREW TAYLOR 12/ 8/10 09:52 PM

WASHINGTON — In a setback for President Barack Obama, Democrats still controlling the House have approved legislation to prevent Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other detainees at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay from being transferred to the U.S. for trials in criminal courts.

The Guantanamo ban was included in a huge catchall spending bill that passed the House Wednesday by a 212-206 vote. The Senate has yet to act on the legislation, which would further imperil Obama's effort to close the detention center for terrorist suspects.

<..> Wednesday's vote would block alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed from a trial in civilian court.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/08/house-blocks-us-trial-guantanamo-detainees_n_794185.html

Other than never giving them a tribunal or trial, this is the only option now since the congress refused to let the detainees come on to US soil and be tried in civilian courts.

[TheKentuckian]

17. So Congress can deny your right to a trial of your peers?

That would seem a direct conflict with the Bill of Rights.

Which means a constitutional show down.

Congress saying "fuck your rights" doesn't mean the response is "okay".

If they were fought then their only option would be impeachment. Push them to the wall. Obama tied his own hands by accepting the premise of tribunals in these circumstances at all. By taking a "nuanced", thread the needle position he can't make assertive arguments for his position.

[jaxx]

21. We are citizens, not held in Gitmo.

Detainees are held there, and the congress won't let them come to the civilian courts in the US to be tried. No matter how much you go on about it, those are the facts. And some of the Dems in congress were as stupid about it as the pubs were. Waaaaaa not in my backyard. No nuance to it.

[TheKentuckian]

26. The Constitution applies to every government action, domestic or abroad.

There are no exceptions because the document is the source of all government authority in concert with the will of the governed.

[SlimJimmy]

28. The Constutution applies to every government action, but it does not apply to every resident of this

country. And it certainly does not apply to those considered to be enemy combatants.

[TheKentuckian]

29. Yeah, it always applies. An enemy combatant is some bullshit label to willfully evade the rule of

law that can be applied at will to any soul on the planet.

The government does not have extra-constitutional powers, such is in effect, an oxymoron.

You are talking childish, ignorant, and emotional nonsense. You want a boogie man status outside of the law and what our founders called inalienable and natural rights that the law nearly enumerated but did not bestow. Such reaches are not only contrary to the principles of limited government but make them impossible. The two cannot exist at the same time, in the same space.

[SlimJimmy]

32. You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. The US

Constitution does not apply to foreign combatants, period. Feel free to sell your bullshit elsewhere. I'm not buying it.

[TheKentuckian]

34. Where is the carve out? By what authority does the government act outside of the constitution?

What is the legal mechanism?

Hell, what is an "enemy combatant" without using BushCo nonsense and how and why does this status apply to the individuals you are comfortable bestowing it on? Who decides this? What are the checks on this authority? How does such a person appeal this designation? How do we know the people even exist and how can we know the particulars on who has this label?

I also notice your subtle swap from enemy to foreign as your label modifier. What is the difference? What does one have to do to be combatant? Who independently verifies such? Do the Geneva Conventions apply?

I think you are the one who doesn't know what they are talking about because you are attacking rather than fielding questions on a matter that your tone implies is plain and settled. You are acting as you have a position of tremendous precedence and even clear as crystal in our founding documents but rather than discuss you attack me for even raising the concerns and questions.

[SlimJimmy]

38. As I said, you don't know squat. Feel free to do some real research next time.

There are already provisions (in law) to establish detention rights for those that are citizens of this country, and found to be enemy combatants. Foreign entities (combatants) have no such rights or privileges.

H. R. 1076

To authorize the President to detain an enemy combatant who is a United States person or resident who is a member of al Qaeda or knowingly cooperated with members of al Qaeda, to guarantee timely access to judicial review to challenge the basis for a detention, to permit the detainee access to counsel, and for other purposes.

(50 U.S.C. 1801 2)(c))

(2) any person who—

(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;

(50 U.S.C. 1801(i))

(i) “United States person” means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.

50 U.S.C. 1801 C)


c) “International terrorism” means activities that—

(1) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any State;
(2) appear to be intended—
(A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(C) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping; and
(3) occur totally outside the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[SlimJimmy]

42. That "gobbledygook" is Federal Law. If you don't like it, get the USSC to overturn it

if it is as unconstitutional as you claim. Otherwise you don't to get to pick and choose what laws you like, and will follow. I didn't make up anything. I quoted federal law. My argument is based on that law. What is *your* argument based on ... Oh that's right, it isn't based on anything.

[Romulox]

36. This is simply incorrect: "(the Constitution) does not apply to every resident of this country".

:hi:

[SlimJimmy]

39. That's what I said in my reply.

"The Constitution applies to every government action, but it does not apply to every resident of this country."

[SlimJimmy]

8. The new boss, same as the old boss (nt)

[spanone]

19. cheap shot and untrue

[Thunderstruck]

20. Really? How so? IIRC, there

IIRC, there was quite the outrage in the liberal community, DU included, when the bush Justice Dept. went there.

Where is all the outrage now that President Obama's Justice Dept. is doing it?

[SlimJimmy]

27. The truth is what it is. If you are so offended then show where

this administration has a different policy with regards to Gitmo?

[CJvR]

16. Depends on how they are classified.

If they are considered combatants (illegal or not) then a military court is the correct authority for a trial.

[WinkyDink]

23. This is so bogus, FGS.

[CJvR]

25. IIRC according to...

...the Geneva convention military prisoners should be tried in a military court. Indeed transfer to a civilian court is specifically restricted.

The main issue here is really the classification itself.

[TheKentuckian]

31. These people are not in the military of any nation and some have just been picked up.

Playing Geneva to justify this bullshit at this point after the conventions have been denied and then randomly reclassifying all manners of people from criminals to poor bastards with the wrong enemies to people likely as not seeing themselves as repelling foreign invaders is wrongheaded and indefensible.

[CJvR]

33. Perhaps...

...but technicalities matter when it comes to legal matters.

How were Nazi and Jap agents and spies treated during WWII?

[TheKentuckian]

35. I'm discussing "technicalities", like what army do these folks serve in.

What nation is it that we are at war with? Where is the battlefield? Who are these folks "agents" for?

This whole affair has turned into "let's just throw shit at the wall and see what sticks and what we can get away with".

[spanone]

18. according to ag holder, justice still wants trials in american courts and congress blocked them

[JoePhilly]

41. Details, details ... stop trying to deflect ... Obama is a Unitary executive and can dictate this.

:sarcasm:

[Thunderstruck]

22. Who has been convicted so far for the crime of 9/11. I know

there was Moussaoui, but has there been anyone else?

[WinkyDink]

24. Dick "War Games" Cheney, Donald "Stand Down" Rumsfeld, and Dubya "Pet Goat" Bush? Not yet.

[Rex]

30. Why bother? They will probably all be dead from old age while

the MIC is still 'hashing out' all the details to their trial. :eyes:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

37. Disgusting.

:puke:

They clearly don't have the untainted evidence that would stand up in a US court to try them here, that's what this is really all about.