You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Lieberman: Bringing terror suspects to U.S. for trial 'inconceivable'
2009-11-14
It is "inconceivable" that the U.S. would bring the alleged terrorist masterminds of the Sept. 11 attacks to New York for trial, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Friday.
B.O. & Co. have apparently conceived it.
Lieberman, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said that the terror detainees, including alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, should be tried in military tribunals outside the U.S. "The terrorists who planned, participated in and aided the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks are war criminals, not common criminals," Lieberman said in a statement. "The individuals accused of committing these heinous, cowardly acts of intentionally targeting unsuspecting, defenseless civilians should therefore be tried by military commission rather than in civilian courts in the United States."
Even better would have been to just quietly dispose of them once they'd been drained of useful information. But we're too squeamish for that.
Lieberman, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats but maintains a hawkish streak on national security issues, said that the terrorist suspects are not entitled to the same rights as U.S. citizens in court. "I share the views of more than 140 family members of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks who recently wrote to the Senate urging that the individuals charged with responsibility for those attacks should be tried by military commission rather than in civilian courts in the United States," Lieberman said. "It is inconceivable that we would bring these alleged terrorists back to New York for trial, to the scene of the carnage they created eight years ago, and give them a platform to mock the suffering of their victims and the victims' families, and rally their followers to continue waging jihad against America."
"I do not think that word means what you think it means."
Lieberman voted with Republicans last week on a losing vote seeking to bar U.S. courts from trying terrorist detainees.
Posted by:Fred

#6  Can you imagine what would happen if one of these guys walked free because of some legal technicality? I shudder to think.

Yes. And it would destroy the judiciary and respect the vast majority of Americans have held for the institutions of law. They'll view it rightfully as degenerated by a self selected group of elites who 'know better'. The legal caste has forgotten Jefferson's admonition that government, thus the law, derives it power from the consent of the governed.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-11-14 23:17  

#5  "Stupid is as stupid does."

What I find most disturbing is the NYT editorial praising 0bama/H0older's decision here. Then when I read some of the comments for the editorial, I threw up in my mouth not a little but a lot. The people who support this seem to do so primarily as a means for bringing Bush/Cheney to task for "crimes" against humanity and the Constitution (which evidently they seem to think is some sort of mass suicide pact). In other words, it's entirely and solely motivated by political payback.

Can you imagine what would happen if one of these guys walked free because of some legal technicality? I shudder to think.
Posted by: eltoroverde   2009-11-14 16:59  

#4  Only to real Americans, Joe.
Posted by: Hellfish   2009-11-14 13:49  

#3  You are correct Procopius2k. Nothing good will come from this and the terrorists are very likely to be acquitted in the very city to which they brought carnage.

Potentially unlawful (by US civil law standards) enhanced interrogation techniques and a jury of their mooslim peers? It is so rediculous. We'd be better off if they simply just let these buggers go.
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-11-14 07:36  

#2  Nothing wacky about it. It's an indirect means to attack the Bush Administration and people who took the war to the enemy. Guess who'll be interrogated by defense lawyers. This is the alternative to Senate hearings that the Donks wanted to crush their real enemies.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-11-14 07:10  

#1  I think Joe is one of the few Dems left with any honor, thus it seemed just as whacky to him, as the rest of us, that anyone, let along the Pseudo-POTUS would conceive of ANYTHING so whacky.
Posted by: BigEd   2009-11-14 00:52  

00:00