What difference does it really make?

[BlueStreak]

I have some questions. Really. No comments, just a few questions.

What difference does it really make whether the 9/11 terrorists are tried in a millitary tribunal, or a Federal Court?

If either one ends in the same sentence, who cares?

Do you think the whole thing is just more rediculous political posturing?

Dave

[merrylander]

I gather that the tribunal had run into difficulties of some sort and had reached an impass otherwise they would have been hung by now.

So try them in New York then hang them.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by merrylander

I gather that the tribunal had run into difficulties of some sort and had reached an impass otherwise they would have been hung by now.

So try them in New York then hang them.

One of the obstacles they faced was near insurrection within the JAG Corps. These tribunals were an affront to any legitimate judicial system and the JAG officers knew it and wanted no part of it.

As for the argument that bringing these people to the US for trial places us all in mortal danger, that's just more Bush Era fear mongering. The defendants themselves offer no danger wherever they're tried. As for their supporters, having the trials conducted at Guantanamo actually gives them more excuse to act against us. Having fair trials conducted under the aegis of a legitimate judicial system gives them less.

EDIT: Not that they would see a distinction here and, really, that's the point. They don't need no steenkin' 'scuses to attack us if they want to. Whether we try these people or where we try them makes no never mind to them at all.

John

[BlueStreak]

Oh, I know. It's an extension of the "OMG, Obamas gonna bring the terrorists to my town! Oooo!!!! Hide the kids in the basement and get me my Glock!!!"

As if they're just going to be released to roam free and toss anthrax about like wedding rice.

I'm beggining to think our countries name should be changes to "The United States of Moronica".

Well, so much for me not making any comments.

Dave

[merrylander]

It is the FUD principle, heard Pat Buchanan on TV pontificating on this very subject. Old Pat must have grown up next door to a major airport, never speaks below a shout.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by merrylander

It is the FUD principle, heard Pat Buchanan on TV pontificating on this very subject. Old Pat must have grown up next door to a major airport, never speaks below a shout.

Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt have been mainstays of the Republican Party for decades. In the beginning the target was mostly communists but really any "alien" group, whether racial, ethnic or national. Since the "Gingrich Devolutuion" of the mid-90s, however, it has come to mean any and every group identifiable as "not like us". That includes their domestic political opponents and people with whom they have religious differences.

It's no longer sufficient for Republicans to disagree with the other side of the aisle. Now it's essential that the opposition be hated, reviled and feared. People like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Virginia Fox, Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs and about half the Georgia Congressional Delegation are more and more using the rhetoric of violence and insurrection when discussing the Democratic party and Obama Administration.

There will, I fear, be Hell to pay before long and when it does all those responsible for fomenting it will do what Beck has already done and deny responsibility for the "nuts" who take his words to extremes.

John

[BlueStreak]

"There will, I fear, be Hell to pay before long and when it does all those responsible for fomenting it will do what Beck has already done and deny responsibility for the "nuts" who take his words to extremes.

John"

So, once these guys have sent their minions to their deaths trying to fight the U.S. Military with their small caliber arms, and they are brought to trial, will it be a Military Tribunal or Civilian Court?

Dave

[Charles]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

"There will, I fear, be Hell to pay before long and when it does all those responsible for fomenting it will do what Beck has already done and deny responsibility for the "nuts" who take his words to extremes.

John"

So, once these guys have sent their minions to their deaths trying to fight the U.S. Military with their small caliber arms, and they are brought to trial, will it be a Military Tribunal or Civilian Court?

Dave

Do you expect this be the conclusion?

I don't see that either side wants to start a shooting war.

2010 will be interesting.

Chas

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Charles

Do you expect this be the conclusion?

I don't see that either side wants to start a shooting war.

2010 will be interesting.

Chas

I don't necessarily see pitched battles between US forces and right wing militias but I do anticipate that we'll see a lot more of the sorts of mass killings, bombings, etc. that we've already seen from right wing fanatics. I think we could see some assassinations too.

Another thing of potentially greater significance - and danger - is the infiltration of our military by Neo-Nazi, skinhead and militant Christianists. It has already happened. The Army and Marines have seen a significant influx of white supremacists and the Air Force Academy has been virtually taken over by militant Christian Fundamentalists. I worry about the "reliability" of a military which is so polluted by extremists.

John

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Charles

Do you expect this be the conclusion?

I don't see that either side wants to start a shooting war.

2010 will be interesting.

Chas

Well, none of the politicians, perhaps. And I don't believe many average Americans want to see any violence. I know I don't. Personally, you may disagree, but I don't believe anyone in the present day left would resort to such a thing.

But, I have to say in all seriousness Charles, that I have to agree with John.

I have heard some disturbing stuff coming from the mouths of people I know.
I personally know people who went out and bought more guns and ammo after Obama was elected, because they're waiting for "the shooting to start".
Not hear-say, but coming from coworkers, neighbors, friends and family.
Then I watch and listen to what people like Palin, Beck, and Hannity are telling them and it doesn't take much of a stretch at all to see where it's coming from.

I believe these people are pushing the bounds of ethical behavior. There are ways for everyone to speak their minds without fomenting hatred. When a politician or pundit fails to discourage hateful violent speech they are, by default, encouraging it. The old "Well, I didn't tell them to say that." dodge doesn't hold any water. Allowing it to go on at a rally or a meeting without at least asking people to be civil is as good as condoning it, as far as I'm concerned.

And these guys are "testing the fences" everyday. Just because I'm a lefty doesn't mean I don't listen in on Limbaugh, Boortz, et al. Back in my Republican days I listened to these guys all of the time. Then they mostly used reason. But I heard it gradually evolving towards demonization, villification, and belittlement until I could no longer stand it. That was ten years ago. Now it has gotten completely absurd, IMHO. And it needs to stop.
They can still speak their minds without all of the theatrics and derogatory hyperbole, people have been doing that for thousands of years.

Have a clementine evening!

Dave