[P.O.E.]

Is there a class in journalism school that teaches them to write headlines with such weasel words? Do they look in the thesaurus under “vague anxiety-raisers”?

“Some fear”
“Many concerned”

It usually leads me to ignore the content, assuming it’s not based on reportage, but just an opinion piece.

[Tzimisce]

Gee, you think?

Of course all these guys are going to be brought out into public scrutiny. That’s part of the reason the left is pushing for a civilian trial.

[Cheerio]

No doubt in my mind this is the reason for the switcheroo. Going after Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, the CIA, DoD, and anyone else involved. THIS IS ALL PART OF THE 'AMERICA APOLOGIZES' meme.

And since we don't hold WAR TRIALS in America, what better way to throw very red meat to the lefites who are very unhappy right now because man-child has not left the wars and Congress is restricting abortion in Obamacare.

[Rafterman]

Get your 2009 D.C. Convention/Tea Party Express I/March On D.C. DVD's! They're finally here! Featuring Lloyd Marcus, Lisa Mei Norton, Lt. Col. Allen West, Joyce Kaufman, Andrew Wilkow, and much more!

2009 D.C. Convention DVD Thread

[Billthedrill]

It won't be anything as direct as placing any of the Bush administration officials in the dock. What is likely to happen is that a judge will rule any evidence gathered as a result of "hard" interrogation to be inadmissible in court. Mind you, there is a very great deal of evidence against KSM that was not gathered that way, but that may neither be here nor there. The object will be to present those hard interrogations as Bush screwing up the war against terrorism. 0bama gets to close Guantanamo, free the terrorists therein, and blame Bush for the inevitable outcome. If the terrorists don't go back to the battlefield right away 0bama gets to preen as a liberator; if they do, he has a ready-made fall guy. It's a win-win as long as the media let him get away with it.

That's where we come in. The alternate media - FR, in this case - do have the ability to alter the framing the MSM used to claim as their own province. It takes a lot of work and the MSM still have the ability to frame the terms of discussion to begin with - we have the new and disgusting locution "tea baggers" to demonstrate that point. But it isn't free anymore, and neither is it necessarily permanent. And 2010 is looming. 0bama had better be very careful with this, because although it looks like an anti-Bush activist's dream come true, it could very easily turn into an ineradicable political nightmare.

[Stultis]

I'm finding it impossible to even imagine any other explanation. Considering that the risks involving homeland security, national security, protecting intelligence secrets, and etc are so extreme -- and considering that military tribunals are available, less risky on all counts, and quicker -- there would have to be some highly exceptional motivation to choosing a civilian criminal court instead.

What explanation has Holder given? Not much, really. Certainly nothing remotely exceptional. From what I've heard his main argument is that this will show the world we trust out own legal system and act according to the rule of law.

Problem is this is obvious b.s. What's more, Holder himself has already contradicted it! For instance he's announced the U.S. will seek the death penalty, while also admitting we haven't decided what the charges will be!! How does that speak to a commitment to "rule of law," deciding the penalty before deciding the charge?!?

Additionally, Holder's announced that the terrorists won't be released. So, if they win in court on a technicality, but we toss them back in permanent detention anyway, what will that tell the world about how we "trust our legal system"? Again, why risk that? Why force this issue over what has been reported as withering and passionate opposition during the inter-agency process.

As the article suggests, there is only one explanation: Get Bush and put America on trial.

[justiceseeker93]

Trying the 9/11 defendants in an American civil court in New York would be like trying the Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor in a civil court in Hawaii. There is no valid historical precedent for foreign enemy combatants to be tried in American civil courts for war crimes.

[Candor7]

Catch This video. This is serious stuff:

(Videos) Homegrown Terrorists – Islamist Training Camps in U.S.

Soldiers of Allah – responsible for over 50 attacks on U.S. soil

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sAYtqCWxLQ&feature=player_embedded

HASAN was a SoA, as printed on his business cards.

[frewdomfighter]

We agree with you, in addition it needs to be realized by all trying them in a civilian court on American soil affords them privileges under our constitution. It them becomes American on trial. Obama is using the despicable acts of war against us, they will make a mockery of the judicial system. This decision to try them in NY is clearly rubbing salt in the deep wounds. We will do what we can to bring awareness to this site and effort to stop the radicals in DC from bringing this forward. God Bless OUR country!