T Nation

Obama Defies Congress, Brings Bin Laden Son in Law to NY

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/03/08/Kangaroo-Court-Obama-Defies-Congress-Endangers-U-S-by-Bringing-bin-Laden-Son-in-Law-to-New-York

I have tried to look at this as objectively as possible and I can see nothing good in this action. Seems to be a colossal fuck up in the making.

[quote]JEATON wrote:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/03/08/Kangaroo-Court-Obama-Defies-Congress-Endangers-U-S-by-Bringing-bin-Laden-Son-in-Law-to-New-York

I have tried to look at this as objectively as possible and I can see nothing good in this action. Seems to be a colossal fuck up in the making. [/quote]

Maybe Obama wants to apologize for killing his dad. He’s weak. Oh wait, you were up in arms concerning the drone strike that killed Anwar al-Aulaqi, a senior al-Qaeda recruiter and spokesman, correct? Yes, Obama, the power hungry tyrant. So which are you today Jeaton, the realist or the idealist?

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/03/08/Kangaroo-Court-Obama-Defies-Congress-Endangers-U-S-by-Bringing-bin-Laden-Son-in-Law-to-New-York

I have tried to look at this as objectively as possible and I can see nothing good in this action. Seems to be a colossal fuck up in the making. [/quote]

Maybe Obama wants to apologize for killing his dad. Oh wait, you were up in arms concerning Anwar al-Aulaqi and his son being killed in a drone strike, correct? So which are you today, the realist or the idealist? [/quote]

Actually, no I was not.

What I had a problem with was the slippery slope of killing Americans on American soil with a drone strike. You see, until Senator Paul forced a definitive answer out of the attorney general that one was being left a little iffy by the current administration.

But then again, your little snide ass comments have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Do you have anything to say about this or do you need to wait till they post something up on CFR.org before you have an opinion?

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/03/08/Kangaroo-Court-Obama-Defies-Congress-Endangers-U-S-by-Bringing-bin-Laden-Son-in-Law-to-New-York

I have tried to look at this as objectively as possible and I can see nothing good in this action. Seems to be a colossal fuck up in the making. [/quote]

Maybe Obama wants to apologize for killing his dad. Oh wait, you were up in arms concerning Anwar al-Aulaqi and his son being killed in a drone strike, correct? So which are you today, the realist or the idealist? [/quote]

Actually, no I was not.

What I had a problem with was the slippery slope of killing Americans on American soil with a drone strike. You see, until Senator Paul forced a definitive answer out of the attorney general that one was being left a little iffy by the current administration.

But then again, your little snide ass comments have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Do you have anything to say about this or do you need to wait till they post something up on CFR.org before you have an opinion?[/quote]

Awww I’m sorry did you not like my chameleon? I thought he looked pretty neat. I apologize for using one of the more scholarly and respected independent sources regarding American Foreign Policy that doesn’t necessitate a subscription. Should I post a reflexive, partisan article written from the hip by someone who has no academic background or relevant experience in the field? You certainly seem to enjoy those, seeing how devoutly you worship at the temple of confirmation bias.

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/03/08/Kangaroo-Court-Obama-Defies-Congress-Endangers-U-S-by-Bringing-bin-Laden-Son-in-Law-to-New-York

I have tried to look at this as objectively as possible and I can see nothing good in this action. Seems to be a colossal fuck up in the making. [/quote]

Maybe Obama wants to apologize for killing his dad. Oh wait, you were up in arms concerning Anwar al-Aulaqi and his son being killed in a drone strike, correct? So which are you today, the realist or the idealist? [/quote]

Actually, no I was not.

What I had a problem with was the slippery slope of killing Americans on American soil with a drone strike. You see, until Senator Paul forced a definitive answer out of the attorney general that one was being left a little iffy by the current administration.

But then again, your little snide ass comments have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Do you have anything to say about this or do you need to wait till they post something up on CFR.org before you have an opinion?[/quote]

Awww I’m sorry did you not like my chameleon? I thought he looked pretty neat. I apologize for using one of the more scholarly and respected independent sources regarding American Foreign Policy that doesn’t necessitate a subscription. Should I post a reflexive, partisan article written from the hip by someone who has no academic background or relevant experience in the field? You certainly seem to enjoy those. [/quote]

Nope. Lets just start with something little ol dumb me can digest. What is the advantage of bringing this man to New York and trying him in a civilian court rather than shipping him off to Gitmo and trying him in a military tribunal as any other enemy combatant?

One reason to try terrorists in civilian court is because that is what they are: civilian criminals. They are not members of a state sponsored military and are not “warriors” entitled to Geneva protections, which is what they are entitled to if you consider them warriors and try them in a military tribunal. Also, if you are going to try them in military tribunal it should be by court-martial as a prisoner under the Geneva Conventions which prohibit civilian trials for prisoners of war. But warriors/prisoners of war are generally entitled to even more protections than civilian criminals.

E.g.:

I frankly don’t see why people are so concerned about a federal district court’s ability to try these people. Federal district court is serious as a heart attack and well equipped to handle big trials. The vast majority of federal district judge’s are smart, tough people who don’t fuck around. Unless the fear is that an Article III District Judge would suppress evidence gathered by torture, or that the terrorists would actually get a fair and open trial, which is a legitimate fear because that is exactly what would happen. Not like that shit going down in Gitmo right now that is getting exactly zero press coverage.

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
One reason to try terrorists in civilian court is because that is what they are: civilian criminals. They are not members of a state sponsored military and are not “warriors” entitled to Geneva protections, which is what they are entitled to if you consider them warriors and try them in a military tribunal. Also, if you are going to try them in military tribunal it should be by court-martial as a prisoner under the Geneva Conventions which prohibit civilian trials for prisoners of war. But warriors/prisoners of war are generally entitled to even more protections than civilian criminals.

E.g.:

I frankly don’t see why people are so concerned about a federal district court’s ability to try these people. Federal district court is serious as a heart attack and well equipped to handle big trials. The vast majority of federal district judge’s are smart, tough people who don’t fuck around. Unless the fear is that an Article III District Judge would suppress evidence gathered by torture, or that the terrorists would actually get a fair and open trial, which is a legitimate fear because that is exactly what would happen. Not like that shit going down in Gitmo right now that is getting exactly zero press coverage. [/quote]

How can he be tried under federal law? He isn’t a citizen and his crimes, as far as I know, weren’t committed in the U.S. so how does U.S. law apply to him?

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
One reason to try terrorists in civilian court is because that is what they are: civilian criminals. They are not members of a state sponsored military and are not “warriors” entitled to Geneva protections, which is what they are entitled to if you consider them warriors and try them in a military tribunal. Also, if you are going to try them in military tribunal it should be by court-martial as a prisoner under the Geneva Conventions which prohibit civilian trials for prisoners of war. But warriors/prisoners of war are generally entitled to even more protections than civilian criminals.

E.g.:

I frankly don’t see why people are so concerned about a federal district court’s ability to try these people. Federal district court is serious as a heart attack and well equipped to handle big trials. The vast majority of federal district judge’s are smart, tough people who don’t fuck around. Unless the fear is that an Article III District Judge would suppress evidence gathered by torture, or that the terrorists would actually get a fair and open trial, which is a legitimate fear because that is exactly what would happen. Not like that shit going down in Gitmo right now that is getting exactly zero press coverage. [/quote]

How can he be tried under federal law? He isn’t a citizen and his crimes, as far as I know, weren’t committed in the U.S. so how does U.S. law apply to him? [/quote]

I’m assuming he is being tried as a 9/11 co-conspirator, which would implicate both federal and state law. He doesn’t need to be physically present in the U.S. to “direct” crimes against U.S. citizens by conspiring to take down the world trade center. But if he hasn’t actually violated any U.S. federal or state law, why is he in U.S. custody at all? If he violated some other, local, non-u.s. law, then that’s the jurisdiction that ought to be trying him.

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
One reason to try terrorists in civilian court is because that is what they are: civilian criminals. They are not members of a state sponsored military and are not “warriors” entitled to Geneva protections, which is what they are entitled to if you consider them warriors and try them in a military tribunal. Also, if you are going to try them in military tribunal it should be by court-martial as a prisoner under the Geneva Conventions which prohibit civilian trials for prisoners of war. But warriors/prisoners of war are generally entitled to even more protections than civilian criminals.

E.g.:

I frankly don’t see why people are so concerned about a federal district court’s ability to try these people. Federal district court is serious as a heart attack and well equipped to handle big trials. The vast majority of federal district judge’s are smart, tough people who don’t fuck around. Unless the fear is that an Article III District Judge would suppress evidence gathered by torture, or that the terrorists would actually get a fair and open trial, which is a legitimate fear because that is exactly what would happen. Not like that shit going down in Gitmo right now that is getting exactly zero press coverage. [/quote]

How can he be tried under federal law? He isn’t a citizen and his crimes, as far as I know, weren’t committed in the U.S. so how does U.S. law apply to him? [/quote]

I’m assuming he is being tried as a 9/11 co-conspirator, which would implicate both federal and state law. He doesn’t need to be physically present in the U.S. to “direct” crimes against U.S. citizens by conspiring to take down the world trade center. But if he hasn’t actually violated any U.S. federal or state law, why is he in U.S. custody at all? If he violated some other, local, non-u.s. law, then that’s the jurisdiction that ought to be trying him.
[/quote]

That’s what I’m wondering, how do we have jurisdiction to try him in NY? We didn’t bring Japanese to Hawaii to try them after WWII, why bring this ass over here?

Also, has anyone thought of the ramifications if he’s not found guilty?

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
One reason to try terrorists in civilian court is because that is what they are: civilian criminals. They are not members of a state sponsored military and are not “warriors” entitled to Geneva protections, which is what they are entitled to if you consider them warriors and try them in a military tribunal. Also, if you are going to try them in military tribunal it should be by court-martial as a prisoner under the Geneva Conventions which prohibit civilian trials for prisoners of war. But warriors/prisoners of war are generally entitled to even more protections than civilian criminals.

E.g.:

I frankly don’t see why people are so concerned about a federal district court’s ability to try these people. Federal district court is serious as a heart attack and well equipped to handle big trials. The vast majority of federal district judge’s are smart, tough people who don’t fuck around. Unless the fear is that an Article III District Judge would suppress evidence gathered by torture, or that the terrorists would actually get a fair and open trial, which is a legitimate fear because that is exactly what would happen. Not like that shit going down in Gitmo right now that is getting exactly zero press coverage. [/quote]

How can he be tried under federal law? He isn’t a citizen and his crimes, as far as I know, weren’t committed in the U.S. so how does U.S. law apply to him? [/quote]

I’m assuming he is being tried as a 9/11 co-conspirator, which would implicate both federal and state law. He doesn’t need to be physically present in the U.S. to “direct” crimes against U.S. citizens by conspiring to take down the world trade center. But if he hasn’t actually violated any U.S. federal or state law, why is he in U.S. custody at all? If he violated some other, local, non-u.s. law, then that’s the jurisdiction that ought to be trying him.
[/quote]

That’s what I’m wondering, how do we have jurisdiction to try him in NY? We didn’t bring Japanese to Hawaii to try them after WWII, why bring this ass over here?

Also, has anyone thought of the ramifications if he’s not found guilty?[/quote]

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a state-sponsored act of war carried out by its military. I’m not up on the history of the prosecution, but there was, in fact, a trial over the attack under military jurisdiction under the international laws of war.

http://lib.law.virginia.edu/imtfe/exhibit/pearl-harbor

http://lib.law.virginia.edu/imtfe/

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
One reason to try terrorists in civilian court is because that is what they are: civilian criminals. They are not members of a state sponsored military and are not “warriors” entitled to Geneva protections, which is what they are entitled to if you consider them warriors and try them in a military tribunal. Also, if you are going to try them in military tribunal it should be by court-martial as a prisoner under the Geneva Conventions which prohibit civilian trials for prisoners of war. But warriors/prisoners of war are generally entitled to even more protections than civilian criminals.

E.g.:

I frankly don’t see why people are so concerned about a federal district court’s ability to try these people. Federal district court is serious as a heart attack and well equipped to handle big trials. The vast majority of federal district judge’s are smart, tough people who don’t fuck around. Unless the fear is that an Article III District Judge would suppress evidence gathered by torture, or that the terrorists would actually get a fair and open trial, which is a legitimate fear because that is exactly what would happen. Not like that shit going down in Gitmo right now that is getting exactly zero press coverage. [/quote]

How can he be tried under federal law? He isn’t a citizen and his crimes, as far as I know, weren’t committed in the U.S. so how does U.S. law apply to him? [/quote]

I’m assuming he is being tried as a 9/11 co-conspirator, which would implicate both federal and state law. He doesn’t need to be physically present in the U.S. to “direct” crimes against U.S. citizens by conspiring to take down the world trade center. But if he hasn’t actually violated any U.S. federal or state law, why is he in U.S. custody at all? If he violated some other, local, non-u.s. law, then that’s the jurisdiction that ought to be trying him.
[/quote]

That’s what I’m wondering, how do we have jurisdiction to try him in NY? We didn’t bring Japanese to Hawaii to try them after WWII, why bring this ass over here?

Also, has anyone thought of the ramifications if he’s not found guilty?[/quote]

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a state-sponsored act of war carried out by its military. I’m not up on the history of the prosecution, but there was, in fact, a trial over the attack under military jurisdiction under the international laws of war.

http://lib.law.virginia.edu/imtfe/exhibit/pearl-harbor

http://lib.law.virginia.edu/imtfe/

[/quote]

Attacks by Al Queda may not be state sponsored, but they are acts of war by an organization, which is why a military tribunal makes sense. This doesn’t make sense.

A few words about civilians courts…Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson.

You do not want the collective stupidity of the uninformed public deciding the fate of people highly responsible for terrorism.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
One reason to try terrorists in civilian court is because that is what they are: civilian criminals. They are not members of a state sponsored military and are not “warriors” entitled to Geneva protections, which is what they are entitled to if you consider them warriors and try them in a military tribunal. Also, if you are going to try them in military tribunal it should be by court-martial as a prisoner under the Geneva Conventions which prohibit civilian trials for prisoners of war. But warriors/prisoners of war are generally entitled to even more protections than civilian criminals.

E.g.:

I frankly don’t see why people are so concerned about a federal district court’s ability to try these people. Federal district court is serious as a heart attack and well equipped to handle big trials. The vast majority of federal district judge’s are smart, tough people who don’t fuck around. Unless the fear is that an Article III District Judge would suppress evidence gathered by torture, or that the terrorists would actually get a fair and open trial, which is a legitimate fear because that is exactly what would happen. Not like that shit going down in Gitmo right now that is getting exactly zero press coverage. [/quote]

How can he be tried under federal law? He isn’t a citizen and his crimes, as far as I know, weren’t committed in the U.S. so how does U.S. law apply to him? [/quote]

I’m assuming he is being tried as a 9/11 co-conspirator, which would implicate both federal and state law. He doesn’t need to be physically present in the U.S. to “direct” crimes against U.S. citizens by conspiring to take down the world trade center. But if he hasn’t actually violated any U.S. federal or state law, why is he in U.S. custody at all? If he violated some other, local, non-u.s. law, then that’s the jurisdiction that ought to be trying him.
[/quote]

That’s what I’m wondering, how do we have jurisdiction to try him in NY? We didn’t bring Japanese to Hawaii to try them after WWII, why bring this ass over here?

Also, has anyone thought of the ramifications if he’s not found guilty?[/quote]

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a state-sponsored act of war carried out by its military. I’m not up on the history of the prosecution, but there was, in fact, a trial over the attack under military jurisdiction under the international laws of war.

http://lib.law.virginia.edu/imtfe/exhibit/pearl-harbor

http://lib.law.virginia.edu/imtfe/

[/quote]

Attacks by Al Queda may not be state sponsored, but they are acts of war by an organization, which is why a military tribunal makes sense. This doesn’t make sense. [/quote]

If you treat them like a state-sponsored military I’m fine with that if that’s the consensus, but the ramifications are they get more rights like Geneva protections and preferable treatment–not less rights and less preferable treatment–than civilian criminals, and results in a legal clusterfuck.

http://www.juridicainternational.eu/index.php?id=12632

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
A few words about civilians courts…Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson.

You do not want the collective stupidity of the uninformed public deciding the fate of people highly responsible for terrorism. [/quote]

Bullshit state courts are not the same as U.S. District Court. The judge I clerked for would have tried the OJ case in two weeks or less and if the lawyers tried pulling any bullshit he would have had them sitting in jail on contempt charges.

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
A few words about civilians courts…Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson.

You do not want the collective stupidity of the uninformed public deciding the fate of people highly responsible for terrorism. [/quote]

Bullshit state courts are not the same as U.S. District Court. The judge I clerked for would have tried the OJ case in two weeks or less and if the lawyers tried pulling any bullshit he would have had them sitting in jail on contempt charges.
[/quote]

You are located in the 9th Circuit, as am I, which is the most often overturned court in the land.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
A few words about civilians courts…Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson.

You do not want the collective stupidity of the uninformed public deciding the fate of people highly responsible for terrorism. [/quote]

Bullshit state courts are not the same as U.S. District Court. The judge I clerked for would have tried the OJ case in two weeks or less and if the lawyers tried pulling any bullshit he would have had them sitting in jail on contempt charges.
[/quote]

You are located in the 9th Circuit, as am I, which is the most often overturned court in the land.

[/quote]

I clerked in the 5th Circuit.

I am just worried that this trial will be put on tv for the whole world to see. Then it will become a circus and you know the accused will spout his Muslim beliefs all over the place. Why does Obama placate to the Islamist extremests?

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I am just worried that this trial will be put on tv for the whole world to see. Then it will become a circus and you know the accused will spout his Muslim beliefs all over the place. Why does Obama placate to the Islamist extremests?[/quote]

No cameras in the courtroom in federal court. But the trials should be public, not conducted in Kafka-esque secrecy.

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I am just worried that this trial will be put on tv for the whole world to see. Then it will become a circus and you know the accused will spout his Muslim beliefs all over the place. Why does Obama placate to the Islamist extremests?[/quote]

No cameras in the courtroom in federal court. But the trials should be public, not conducted in Kafka-esque secrecy. [/quote]

People should be allowed in the room, but that is it. No cameras would be great.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I am just worried that this trial will be put on tv for the whole world to see. Then it will become a circus and you know the accused will spout his Muslim beliefs all over the place. Why does Obama placate to the Islamist extremests?[/quote]

No cameras in the courtroom in federal court. But the trials should be public, not conducted in Kafka-esque secrecy. [/quote]

People should be allowed in the room, but that is it. No cameras would be great.[/quote]

That’s exactly how it works. No cameras, and, other than the official court reporter, no audio recording devices.