Not so reasonable argument
Last week, dicksmith at VoteVets joined with Jerry “The Waddler” Nadler in defending Attorney General Holder’s decision to try Guantanamo detaineees in New York City instead of by military tribunal;
Watch as Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) uses facts and reason to rebut Congressman Dan Lungren’s (R-CA) points on trying Guantanamo Bay detainees in civilian courts:
I think reason won the day over Rep. Lungren’s clear disdain for the rule of law.
Dicksmith inserted this video from HardLeftBall;
What dicksmith and Nadler consider “reasonable” is that under a military tribunal, those five terrorists (Nadler calls them “alleged terrorists”) won’t get any justice befitting the American people. Another shot at the military, of course. Good place for dicksmith to come down on this – a pro-military organization taking cheap shots at the integrity of the military.
But, to kind of stick a finger in the eye of Holder’s supporters, yesterday the lawyer representing Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali announced that, even though his client is guilty, he’ll plead not guilty in New York City;
Attorney Scott Fenstermaker says his client Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali and the others will not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but will tell the jury “why they did it.”
He says the men will explain “their assessment of American foreign policy.”
Fenstermaker met with Ali last week at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay. He says the men, including professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, have discussed the trial among themselves.
Yes, Holder and Nadler and dicksmith are playing right into the hands of these thugs by allowing them a forum in which they can “explain their assessment of American foreign policy.” I wonder if the victims of 9/11 will get the opportunity to explain their assessment of terrorism to the jury.
Category: Antiwar crowd, Legal, Military issues
Scott WindowMaker (fenster is window auf deutsch)is apparently seeking his fifteen minutes of fame and anyone who wants to be a terrorisr’s lawyer should be disbarred, IMO. They deserve none of the rights afforded US Citizens, period.
PS. Like we all don’t KNOW why he did it? Wonder how many times the Windowmaker had to take the bar exam?
I see the spectacle, down the road, of US Marshals cuffing and gagging said defendants and dragging them out of the court room to shut them up at the judge’s orders. And the pictures, or drawings being broadcast all over Al-Jazeera. That will take the rest of the world’s mind off what these asshats did. And their defense attorneys standing on the steps of the court house, telling everyone who will listen, that their clients are being denied a fair trial.
I’m not interested in listening to them tell us we are evil. I’m not interested in their reasons for what they did. All I want to hear is the shots fired at their execution.
I wonder how dicksmith’s and FatBoy’s “facts and reason” would hold up to this:
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=13145
DOD Announces Military Commissions Actions
Today, prosecutors in the Office of Military Commissions announced they intend to ask the convening authority to refer new charges under the recently-enacted Military Commissions Act of 2009 against Abd al-Rahim Hussein Muhammed Abdu al-Nashiri, in connection with the bombing of the USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, in October 2000. The bombing resulted in the deaths of 17 sailors and injuries to many more.
This announcement follows the attorney general’s determination on Nov. 13, 2009, that a military commission was the proper forum for prosecution of al-Nashiri.
The prosecutors are reviewing this and other cases identified by the attorney general as appropriate for trial in a military commission and anticipate making further announcements soon.
As part of the process of moving forward with the prosecution of al-Nashiri, on Nov. 19, 2009, in response to a request from the prosecutors, the convening authority dismissed without prejudice the pending charges against al-Nashiri. This dismissal without prejudice is a procedural action permitting new charges to be referred at a later time.
A charge is merely an accusation; an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
=====================
USS Cole…Cole…wait, wasn’t that in 2000? Wasn’t Clinton the president then? So if it happened on a Democrat’s watch, military tribunals are just fine–is that what you’re sayin, Eric?
“USS Cole…Cole…wait, wasn’t that in 2000? Wasn’t Clinton the president then? So if it happened on a Democrat’s watch, military tribunals are just fine”
Ouch, blunts what I have to say, BUT if Bush would’ve gotten a war declared on the Al-Q and their allies back in ’01 instead of telling us to keep shopping, we wouldn’t have the Obama administration trying these bastards in civilian court.
Okay, Junior–who EXACTLY would we have declared war upon back in 2001 then?
Just an FYI — Eric Schemltzer, Vote Vets’ communications director used to work for Rep. Nadler. Malea Stenzel, former Executive Director of Vote Vets used to work for Rep. Nadler as well. Stenzel couldn’t stand working for Soltz so she quit. Soltz is a Democrat first, veteran second. He’ll do whatever he thinks will keep him in the good graces of the Democratic party.
It will be all over when the judge asks if the “suspects” were “read their rights”.
F***ing ludicrous PC bullshit.