Herman Cain

[tombogan03884]

What part of it was arbitrary?
It is a stated fact that Al Awlaki was recruiting, training, and assisting with the planning and execution of American and Coalition civilians and combatants.  We have mountains of evidence that he was doing it.  He iwas universally cited as a leader in AQAP.  Other countries found him guilty and called for his execution (Yemen, his "other" citizenship among them).  Our own legal system, as screwed as it can be, determined he was a clear and present danger to the security of the United States.  A military tribunal weighed the evidence and determined he was an enemy combatant.   How many trials does this guy need have to have before it satisfies you?  You can call foul all you want, the rules were followed and he was eliminated.  Just because you couldn't watch it on Court TV is irrelevant.  Plus they were in the process of stripping him of his citizenship.  So if they had it would have been ok, since they didn't kill an American at that point, but since they hadn't it's not?  Following that logic EVERY terrorist, no matter what country they are from requires a trial prior to eliminating them, just to make it "legal".

For an American Citizen to be killed by the American Govt requires an American conviction.
If you weren't so pigheaded about this you would see that .
Why doesn't Texas increase revenue by contracting executions for Mexico.
Cuz it's stupid.

[jnevis]

So Tom, by your standard every tribunal at Gitmo needs to be on Court TV and published in every paper?
You're the first to say that the media and the government doesn't tell us everything, which I agree too.  Sure it would be easy to come out and say that the tribunal saw the evidence and found him guilty, but in doing so jepardizes the sources and capabilities used to collect the data.  Bitch all you want, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE NEED TO KNOW.  This isn't BHO's birth certificate, it's an on-going war on terrorism with other targets on the table.

[tombogan03884]

Go ahead, hide behind "Need to know" like a typical govt hack.
The Constitution is clear and you are just grasping at straws to support BS.
If the UN were ever "patrolling in the US", or what ever the tin foil crowd claims, it will be suckers like you under the blue helmets.
I used to think well of you, but you are no better than the New Orleans LEO's during Katrina.
Just remember the magic words J, Befeln ist befeln.
Ve must have ordnung !

[jnevis]

I'm sorry you feel that way Tom but look at it from another perspective.
Not saying ANYTHING and letting the Tom Bogans of the world say it's illegal and complain means we can contiue to gather data and use it to find, target, and capture/eliminate terrorist threats and give you the right to continue to complain in relative peace.  Acknowledging the tribunal happened would require the intel community to release what we knew, when we knew it, and how we got the information.  That puts guys down range in danger and causes us to loose valuable time to rebuild the capability to gather the data, meaning we run the risk of getting attacked again.  I have a LOT more insight into what's happening and I think it's the right call, that's all I'll say.

I don't like the gov't running amok any more than you do, but there are limits to transperency and blabbing everything we do to the evening news.  Like Spock says, "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few."  Your safety and the safety of those downrange outweigh letting the world know everything we do because a few people that are actively trying to kill us happen to be citizens.

[Solus]

I'm sorry you feel that way Tom but look at it from another perspective.
Not saying ANYTHING and letting the Tom Bogans of the world say it's illegal and complain means we can contiue to gather data and use it to find, target, and capture/eliminate terrorist threats and give you the right to continue to complain in relative peace.  Acknowledging the tribunal happened would require the intel community to release what we knew, when we knew it, and how we got the information.  That puts guys down range in danger and causes us to loose valuable time to rebuild the capability to gather the data, meaning we run the risk of getting attacked again.  I have a LOT more insight into what's happening and I think it's the right call, that's all I'll say.

I don't like the gov't running amok any more than you do, but there are limits to transperency and blabbing everything we do to the evening news.  Like Spock says, "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few."  Your safety and the safety of those downrange outweigh letting the world know everything we do because a few people that are actively trying to kill us happen to be citizens.

jnevis,  Drop your smokescreen about those opposing this action wanting it all on the evening news.  I have never stated that and  neither has Tom.  Either you are dreaming or deliberately trying to cloud the issue.  In either case, it makes for a poor argument.

Next, you mention a quote from Spock.  Unless you want to limit it's validity to only the cases you approve of, it is exactly the argument the current administration is using to promote Marxism/Socialism.  If you mean it only has validity when you want it to, you can drop that argument also.

Last, the Tom Bogans of the world did not say it was illegal, it was the legal reference you posted.   Try to read it this time.

 (c) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive— A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.

Did you manage to notice the word  trial?

By your own reference, there needed to be a trial.   And before you start blowing smoke about it not being possible, remember I previously posted that a trial in absentia should be allowed and that the trial also performs the function of having the evidence formally presented to the judges at the trial.   Please note that I have said NOTHING about making it public, so don't throw up that red herring again.

The only requirement I think should be there is that a timeline of when the events required by this law be available and that the members of the Tribunal and the Trial Judge Roster should be known so that we don't have it consisting of  BHO, Michelle, their two daughters and Eric Holder.  I'd like to be assured of a little more qualification and lack of bias.


 It would be nice to see someone I trusted on the Tribunal and Trial Judge roster...but I don't imagine Larry Potterfield  would be chosen even if he is available.....

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

I'm sorry you feel that way Tom but look at it from another perspective.
Not saying ANYTHING and letting the Tom Bogans of the world say it's illegal and complain means we can contiue to gather data and use it to find, target, and capture/eliminate terrorist threats and give you the right to continue to complain in relative peace.  Acknowledging the tribunal happened would require the intel community to release what we knew, when we knew it, and how we got the information.  That puts guys down range in danger and causes us to loose valuable time to rebuild the capability to gather the data, meaning we run the risk of getting attacked again.  I have a LOT more insight into what's happening and I think it's the right call, that's all I'll say.

I don't like the gov't running amok any more than you do, but there are limits to transperency and blabbing everything we do to the evening news. Like Spock says, "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few."  Your safety and the safety of those downrange outweigh letting the world know everything we do because a few people that are actively trying to kill us happen to be citizens.

Your position keeps changing, mine remains the same.
I don't give a crap about public, although most murder trials are. My focus has consistently been on the point that the US Govt is violating the Constitution when it executes a US citizen with out trial.
The fact that you have been reduced to quoting a fictional character paraphrasing Lenin contradicting the stated purpose of the Founding Fathers is pathetic
When considered in the context of your Govt employment it becomes scary.

[jnevis]

Both sides of this arguement are making assumtions that, regetably, we will never know the whole story.
You are assuming the trial never happened, while I'm saying it did,  just that the records are more than likely sealed and the information will not be released.  Would I like to see it released, hell yes.  Do I believe it will ever happen, no.  I never once said it wasn't possible.  

We don't openly discuss the other trials being held at Gitmo or release the details of them, why should this one be any different?  Because the accused is an American?  So his nationality gives him more rights than any other terrorist?  They have only acknowledged that they are happening, not the members, accused, or witnesses.

John Walker Lindh was given an "open" federal trial, only because we captured him alive, in Afghanistan, prior to the law referenced earlier being written.  We didn't even know he was a threat until he was captured.  Al Alwaki had been operating for years and was well known so an in abstetia trial/tribunal; isn't outside the realm of the possible.  

[jnevis]

The fact that you have been reduced to quoting a fictional character paraphrasing Lenin contradicting the stated purpose of the Founding Fathers is pathetic
When considered in the context of your Govt employment it becomes scary.

This from the guy that resorted to name calling and ranting.  How very Democratic of you.

[tombogan03884]

Both sides of this arguement are making assumtions that, regetably, we will never know the whole story.
You are assuming the trial never happened, while I'm saying it did,  just that the records are more than likely sealed and the information will not be released.  Would I like to see it released, hell yes.  Do I believe it will ever happen, no.  I never once said it wasn't possible. 

We don't openly discuss the other trials being held at Gitmo or release the details of them, why should this one be any different?  Because the accused is an American?  So his nationality gives him more rights than any other terrorist?  They have only acknowledged that they are happening, not the members, accused, or witnesses.

John Walker Lindh was given an "open" federal trial, only because we captured him alive, in Afghanistan, prior to the law referenced earlier being written.  We didn't even know he was a threat until he was captured.  Al Alwaki had been operating for years and was well known so an in abstetia trial/tribunal; isn't outside the realm of the possible. 

More BS.
Here's 10+ pages of hits on "Gitmo trials"

http://www.ask.com/web?l=dis&o=15492&qsrc=2873&q=gitmo%20trials

Lets look a few titles

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/10/ap-military-guantanamo-trials-transparency-added-100511/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_military_commission

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40178.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/022208_rigged_trials.htm

http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/dpps/news/change-planned-for-next-gitmo-trials-dpgapx-20111005-to_15345693

That's just picked off the first 2 pages, nope, no info there.   

This from the guy that resorted to name calling and ranting.  How very Democratic of you.

Name calling ? By comparing you unfavorably to a Nazi ? They were obeying their laws, you want to chuck them out the window if you don't like the victim.
Democratic ? No thank God, I support the Republic, not mob rule.

[jnevis]

I conceed that I cannot find anything either way on whether a trial actually occurred. 

The White House ordered its lawyers to prepare a carefully drafted legal opinion that would permit the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, the United States-born al-Qaeda leader killed by a drone attack in Yemen last month.

A 50-page argument was written in 2010 to justify the potential killing of al-Awlaki, it has emerged. As he was an American citizen, the Government would in normal circumstances have been legally prevented from executing him without first staging a fair trial.

The existence of the secret document, which effectively dodged that protocol, was revealed yesterday by the New York Times.

Al-Awlaki's assassination would be lawful only if it was not possible to capture him alive, it concluded. Because his circumstances were deemed unique, the opinion does not set a future precedent for the US to kill any citizen it suspects of posing a terrorist threat


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/terrorism/news/article.cfm?c_id=340&objectid=10758115

End result is the same, one less dirtbag.
To much stuff to get accomplished to worry about it, since i'm a "pigheaded gvernment hack"