A message to you, Rudy: Man up
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
A message to you, Rudy: Man up
Rudy Giuliani -- from "Winston Churchill" to quivering Jello-like mass of fear in just eight short years. Maybe it's domestic bliss? It was just a few short years ago -- during the Bush years, if I'n not mistaken -- that Giuliani was happy to testify at the domestic criminal trial of a foreign-born al-Qaeda plotter, Zacarias Moussaoui. Wonder what changed?
Legal expert Andrew Cohen had a must-read piece in the Washington Post about some of the myths about trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York. He notes:
Trying Mohammed in New York will significantly raise the risk of another terrorist attack there. Fact: No one can determine how big that increased risk would be. But New York has long been able to safely host trials of terrorism suspects -- including the trial that followed the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center -- and its security systems are among the world's finest. I have seen, during the Zacarias Moussaoui trial in 2006, just how intense security can be in terrorism cases. It's awe-inspiring.
Rudy should go. He might learn something. He could also listen to Pat Perry:
Pat Perry, whose son was a police offer killed on 9/11, says she would rather see the Guantánamo detainees who have been held without charge “appear in open court where we can all sift out what we feel is really the truth and the judges can make a decision based on our Constitution.”
These 9/11 family members all say they agree that holding detainees without charge in Guantánamo is a betrayal of American values and they look forward to true justice being served in federal court.
“My son gave his life to save those trapped in the Twin Towers,” Welty says, “and it does not honor him that we violate our Constitution in retaliation for what happened on September 11.”
Comments (78)
I am having a hard time understanding what this article is telling me. Am I supposed to read all the links? I don't have time for that.— towman- "is it tghen a 'war crime' to bomb your 'enemy's' military HQ" I'd say that would be determined at the trial before the military tribunal. In any case, I'd say that it is a matter of perspective. Just as it is the winners who write the history, it is the captors who will determine if hitting the Pentagon is a war crime. Had Germany won WWII would there have been any thought that the holocaust was a war crime? Of course not...not from their perspective.— legatus
- and what does a picture of John Cleese in a dress have to do with anything?— towman
"Just as it is the winners who write the history, it is the captors who will determine if hitting the Pentagon is a war crime." . . . . . . And it so happens that the captor here is a nation of laws. Or do you wish us to be like nazi Germany?- And the laws in this nation of laws can be interpreted to mean that these enemy combatants should be tried as such in a military tribunal, or they can be interpreted to mean that they can be tried as ordinary criminals. Isn't that the entire point of this discussion? Why would trying them in a military tribunal make us like nazi Germany?— legatus
- Political calculations are part of politics, legatus. I'd never suggest that political calculations aren't a part of the rationale that goes into Obama administration policy development, just as I found it positively laughable when people claimed that political calculations weren't a part of the Bush administration's policy development - such as whether or not to use torture, whether or not to invade Iraq, etc., etc. That's what politicians do. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a reasonable rationale behind a decision that the best possible policy here is to stand behind the very principles that distinguish us from our enemies, and that stand us apart from tin pot, two-bit dictatorships: a believe in the rule of law, abiding by the principles of due process and innocent until proven guilty. To the extent that putting these detainees on trial in a civil court, and showing the world how proud we are of open and above-board processes of holding even our enemies accountable, the decision makes perfect sense. If putting the other detainees on trial in a similar venue would make it unlikely that they could be tried and convicted, then I, personally, am OK with trying them in a military tribunal process which has been modified from the military tribunal process the Bush administration tried to use. Regardless, the law is clear. The proper jurisdiction is that of the Attorney General. And certainly, legatus, is arguably political when in the name of "patriotism," conservatives disparage the very judicial processes that the country was founded on.— Talking point sleuth
Comment removed.- I have a resolution to the argument -- obviously, intelligent people (i'm being self-congratulating here) can disagree on the correct approach on what to do with the pieces of filth from Gitmo. What we can ALL agree on is that people (mostly republicans at this point) are using this case as political fodder to advance a political agenda to dislodge this President's agenda. This is a page straight out of the 2000-2008 democratic playbook, and it stinks. It does not serve the interests of the American people. We can have the right amount of furious debate on real issues/disagreements like healthcare and bailouts, but this one seems manufactured. I'm disappointed in our conservative leaders on this one -- it they really disagree with the tactic of a criminal trial, just say so and clearly state your reasons. There's no reason for the hysteronics and fear-baiting.— IggleFan68
- "Why would trying them in a military tribunal make us like nazi Germany?" . . . . . Did I say it would? I was referring to your reference to nazi Germany for the proposition that laws of war don't matter in the end, only who's victorious. I'm sure Osama bin Laden shares that view, too. Obviously, the law of war has withstood the test of time and tyrants.
- Comment removed.
- I never said that there was no reasonable rationale to use civilian courts. I simply maintain that military tribunals are the proper place for these combatants and that political calculations ultimately ruled the day. I think that all of the talk about being proud of our legal processes, and the principles that distinguish us from our enemies is hogwash, as the the same pride and principles would be on display if Holder had decided on military tribunal. "If putting the other detainees on trial in a similar venue would make it unlikely that they could be tried and convicted, then I, personally, am OK with trying them in a military tribunal process..." This sounds like you are not so sure that justice will be served in a criminal trial, or at least that there could be a different outcome depending on the venue. This isn't exactly brimming with pride and confidence in our legal system. I think that we'd get the same outcome in either type of trial...I see no need to try to game the system in order to produce a desired outcome. It's been nice chatting...time for me to go now.— legatus
- ---]]] ...that political calculations ultimately ruled the day. {{{--- And it is my assumption that what ruled the day is the belief that foregrounding the fairness of our judicial processes ruled the day. ---}}} all of the talk about being proud of our legal processes, and the principles that distinguish us from our enemies is hogwash, {{{--- Wow! Maybe you should re-read what Petraeus had to say on the subject, legatus. Not only does he disagree that it is "hogwash," he has also said that foregrounding those principles is crucial on the fight against jihadis. ---}}} as the the same pride and principles would be on display if Holder had decided on military tribunal. {{{--- You can't seriously think that there is no difference in how this will play throughout the world regardless of the court venue? Holding these trials in civilian court will allow America to use these trials, much more effectively, as a propaganda tool. ---}}} This sounds like you are not so sure that justice will be served in a criminal trial, {{{--- Not at all. But there are differences in the different systems, such as rules of evidence. Since military tribunals allow for weaker evidence, they should be used for weaker cases. Evidence that may not clear a federal court standard can more likely lead to convictions in military court. That is just a fact, and to ignore those facts would make no sense. You maximize the benefit you can get while safeguarding against worst case scenarios. Entire logical.— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} We can have the right amount of furious debate on real issues/disagreements like healthcare and bailouts, {{{--- Speaking of which: --snip-- Uninsured patients with traumatic injuries, such as car crashes, falls and gunshot wounds, were almost twice as likely to die in the hospital as similarly injured patients with health insurance, according to a troubling new study.....The researchers took into account the severity of the injuries and the patients' race, gender and age. After those adjustments, they still found the uninsured were 80 percent more likely to die than those with insurance — even low-income patients insured by the government's Medicaid program. --snip-- And so, once again we see what all the comprehensive studies show, there is a great disparity in out health care system depending on your financial status. Advocating for the status quo indicates you find that acceptable.— Talking point sleuth
- xi lives, are you one of those guys that hears voices coming from the transmitter in your head. You must be if you believe Andrew McCarthy's ramblings.— pete1989
Will, you are doing your best to make Rudy look ridiculous. Fair enough - as a non-American living in Philadelphia, my interest in this case is theoretical anyway. But have you considered how criminal procedure, including Miranda rights and the chain of custody of evidence, can possibly be water-tight in the case of a foreign national captured outside of America, and held for 7 years, by non-law enforcement personnel? This case will have a million holes and will almost certainly result in a non-guilty verdict. This is the potential disaster that Holden is bringing upon America.
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: