
Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) has strong words for the Republicans opposing Attorney General Eric Holder's plan to bring five 9/11 suspects to New York City to face trial.
"They see this as an opportunity to demagogue," he said. "They will seize on any opportunity to do that, and that means they'll even take a stand that's un-American."
"It's un-American to hold anyone indefinitely without trial," Moran added. "It's against our principles as a nation."
Moran, who represents the Congressional district closest to D.C., was among the only members of Congress to advocate President Obama's plan to send prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to the U.S. so the military prison could be shut down. Obama first proposed the idea shortly after being elected and most in Congress rejected the plan, saying that bringing terror suspects to this country would endanger American lives.
Today, many politicians raised those same fears. Moran dismissed them.
"Right now, they're sitting in Guantanamo gaining sympathy," he said. "The sooner that we prosecute this guy, the sooner we can reduce the anti-American propaganda that surrounds his detention and inflames our enemies."
"Until we do that, it only strengthens the hand of people who recruit new terrorists with the clame claim we aren't true to our principles," he added.
CN
November 13, 2009 7:08 PM
Thank you, Jim Moran.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
November 13, 2009 7:23 PM
What if they get off because of the torture used against them? Would America simply release KSM back to Pakistan? I assume the only evidence used will be pre-capture in order to convict. However his lawyer will not be doing their job if they don't try to grandstand the hell out of the trial, making it about the torture used on KSM.
KSM sympathizers will not see any difference between him in Gitmo without charges vs. they'll certainly assume a show trial that will lead to the death penalty.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CN
November 13, 2009 7:57 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
They will not be acquitted. Holder would never have transferred these cases to federal court unless he was certain the government could win under the normal rules of evidence, with full constitutional protections, etc. That's why these particular cases were transferred.
The cases the AG is less sure about winning will stay in front of the military tribunals. The cases Holder knows he can't win will get no process at all: indefinite detention without trial. Glenn Greenwald has a very good analysis of this today.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
November 15, 2009 9:26 AM in reply to CN
CN,
excellent analysis, I agree. Holder and his advisors would have to be complete idiots to bring them here unless they knew they would get convictions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ann Arbor
November 13, 2009 8:03 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
I'll go out on a limb and say Holder took into account the problem of tainted evidence and was confident of gaining convictions in spite of it. That very issue may be part of the reason he chose New York for the trials:
http://firedoglake.com/2009/11/13/some-alleged-911-plotters-to-be-tried-in-sdny-storehouse-of-evidence-untainted-by-torture/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
November 13, 2009 11:08 PM in reply to Ann Arbor
NPR was reporting this morning that KSM's confession came before he was tortured, and he was waterboarded later in order to get information on other detainees. I won't vouch for the veracity of that, but it jibes with all the reports we were hearing a while ago about how he was talking freely for some time until they started waterboarding.
So it may cause trouble for other prosecutions, but not his.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Renman42
November 14, 2009 8:29 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
And if they do get off or scream and yell about torture, we deserve it. We let our leaders make us criminals. Bite the bullet and man up. Even these sons of bitches require a trial. Let's get it done and convict them with all the evidence we have ...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 13, 2009 7:46 PM
Hallelujah!!!! I guess he's the next victim of the Limbaugh/Palin party
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 13, 2009 7:46 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Actually, I mistook him for a thuglican. Sorry Moran. How could I make such a mistake!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
November 14, 2009 9:43 AM in reply to lousgirl84
You're still right, though. Moran and the libruls apparently hate freedom and want to unleash terror in our midst!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nikkiru
November 16, 2009 7:17 PM in reply to Overreach THIS!
Yes! Because the very idea of due process is incompatible with freedom!
Freedom means you can lock up anybody you want, without ever having to prove any charges against them, right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Doug in Mount Vernon
November 17, 2009 3:37 PM in reply to Overreach THIS!
No, it's that my Congressman understands that justice can be reached in sdny courts, and that this hot air about federal courts providing "rights" to terror suspects is just a political grandstanding and an attempt to stike cowardice and fear into the hearts of congresscritters....sadly for too many of them it works....but I'm proud that my congressman, Jim Moran, is not one of them!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KevinCT
November 13, 2009 8:22 PM
Being quite familiar with the sporadic competence of the Art. III crowd in the Southern District of NY I am fearful that this decision, which in theory I support, may backfire on the US ery badly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mike from Arlington
November 13, 2009 9:25 PM
That's my Rep!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
November 13, 2009 9:38 PM
Unfortunately, this is about, what 7 or 8 years too late. However, better late than never. These murderers should already be locked up in super max for life, tried and convicted, or the death penalty if you are for that. An absolute travesty of justice and a huge stain on American History. Hopefully, this will never happen again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wvbiker
November 14, 2009 9:46 AM in reply to Michael A
I am certainly not against the death penalty and there is a strong argument that terrorists deserve the death penalty.
But the terrorist situation might be one better served where young Islamists could be influenced over the long term if the terrorists convicted by proper US Constitution procedures and sitting in SuperMax are still sitting in jail awaiting their 57 or whatever number of virgins. Hell, let them hang out in the regular prison population and see how that virgin thing works out there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sinz52
November 14, 2009 10:45 AM in reply to wvbiker
Here in Massachusetts where I live, a convict sentenced to life imprisonment without parole murdered another prisoner in that prison. That was about 15 years ago.
Now: How can you punish that convict for this new murder? He's already been sentenced to life imprisonment. There's nothing more the State can do to him.
We had another example where a convict sentenced to life imprisonment without parole escaped from prison, and raped and murdered a woman on the outside. Again, he knew he could do that with impunity because there was nothing more the State could do to him.
That's unlikely to happen with KSM at Supermax. But I raise this issue because I never hear liberals address it for non-Supermax prisons: A prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment without parole knows the State can't punish him any further, and so he's willing and able to commit more murders if he can. And in those two cases I cited, he did.
The death penalty is superior to life imprisonment without parole, because it ends the convict's chances of committing any more crimes. Permanently. Most prisons aren't escape proof.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benjoya
November 14, 2009 11:55 AM in reply to sinz52
and if you execute people who didn't actually commit crimes, hey that's the price for being the most civilized country in the world. USA! USA! WE ARE GODS!!!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jfields
November 15, 2009 4:16 AM in reply to sinz52
sinz52:
What is your answer to those who point out that the death penalty also ends our chance to fix mistakes when we convict an innocent person? Such cases have been occurring with distressing frequency of late—and those are just the ones we know about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 15, 2009 8:28 AM in reply to jfields
Amen to that. I used to be a proponent of the death penalty especially for those who commit such heinous crimes but after finding out how many innocent people are in prison and how many (Bush) may have put to death, I no longer believe
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFC MAC
November 18, 2009 11:29 AM in reply to lousgirl84
Yeah, let's free cold-blooded murderers like Charles Manson, Asan Akbar and Richard Ramirez. Of course, it's too late for Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy, but hell we can go ahead and empty the rest of them back out on the streets because we have have to make up for everything that eeeeeevil Boosh did.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
November 16, 2009 2:33 PM in reply to sinz52
There are plenty of things that can be done to make someone's life more and less unpleasant in a maximum security prison, even if they have been sentenced to life imprisonment. Supermax prisons are themselves forms of torture.
I realize that democracy and basic human decency can be difficult and complicated, but it's really better for everybody if we find ways to work within their boundaries instead of looking for ways to treat other human beings like trash. One reason that there is so much violence in American prisons is that as a people we don't actually care what happens to the people inside them.
First we stop putting so many people in prison unnecessarily, then we improve the lives of the people who are incarcerated, and then we can discuss whether state-sanctioned murder is justified by the belief that we can have freedom and justice without solving difficult problems and making difficult decisions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
November 13, 2009 9:48 PM
Boehner and Cornyn are un-American, why that's crazy! They supported a war against Iraq when terrorists from Afghanistan attacked us. They opposed arresting Cheney when he outed a CIA agent operating covertly. They are true Patriots who make us safer with their courage and wisdom.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
November 13, 2009 11:16 PM
Of course, the awkward thing now is that Moran finds himself on the opposite side of the fence from Jim Webb. I disagree with Webb, but his opinion is going to carry considerable clout in Virginia.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
November 13, 2009 11:49 PM
Rather than adopting conservatives' words, let's do our best to retire them. Adopting them just makes them seem reasonable. To that end, can we abolish "un-American"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NotBornEveryMinute
November 14, 2009 12:43 AM in reply to ericf
Let's just use them accurately, as Representative Moran has done in this instance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir Francis
November 14, 2009 3:38 AM
"It's un-American to hold anyone indefinitely without trial...It's against our principles as a nation."
Presumably it is not un-American to hold someone for seven years without trial...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
November 14, 2009 6:16 AM
I think this idea of waging a war on terrorism is less helpful than a policing approach. KSM and his ilk are criminals. They see themselves as heroic warriors, but we'll be doing ourselves a favor by treating them as criminals. That's how most of the Muslim world views people who kill non-combatants. If we start treating them like soldiers, people who represent some cause, Muslims are going to start looking at it that way too: us vs. them. Military framing glorifies and validates their cause. These guys are basically religiously fanatical criminals who want power, beyond the pale in their own culture.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smitty McGhee
November 14, 2009 7:13 AM
Jim Webb is unamerican or a republican.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Beagle
November 14, 2009 9:33 AM
I'm glad you are my representative Mr. Jim Moran.
For those who are concerned that these guys might walk free, I say have faith in the American Justice System- it worked for couple of hounderds of years.
CBS news' chief legal analyst has a list of myths that ought to be destroyed.... follow this link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/13/AR2009111303586.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sinz52
November 14, 2009 10:39 AM
We tried "a policing response" in the 1990s, holding trials and convicting a couple dozen low-level terrorists. The result was 9-11.
Here's your liberal plan for dealing with terrorism:
1993: First WTC bombing. Hold a trial, convict some terrorists.
2000: U.S.S. Cole bombing. Send FBI, hold trials, convict some terrorists (whom Yemen then releases anyway).
2001: 9-11 kills 3,000. Hold a trial, convict a few terrorists.
2011 (??): Suitcase nuke blows up downtown of some American city, kills 100,000. Hold trials, convict a few terrorists.
In other words, you are trying to institutionalize terrorism--fit it into our existing criminal justice system as something we live with, just as we live with other crimes. But that won't do anything to end the terrorist threat.
And as long as it's not ended, every terrorist on earth is going to try to outdo 9-11. It set the bar for them all.
As for Moran's comment: Terrorists aren't recruited with the claim "we aren't true to our principles." Jihadists don't care about "infidel principles." What violations of our principles caused the first WTC bombing in 1993?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KeithL
November 14, 2009 11:28 AM in reply to sinz52
Wow, Sin! Where to begin? First, take a look at the perpetrators of the '93 Twin tower bombing and the Cole incident. THOSE GUYS ARE IN JAIL! Hello!
2001 - President Cheney and his staff, totally ignored the police work, already well developed, regarding al Qaeda plans and personalities. They enabled turf warfare and pissing contests between the "adults" suddenly in charge of "National Security", who were more concerned about covering asses than actually doing their jobs.
It's the Cheney acolytes, like yourself, who want to institutionalize terrorism. Like communism before it, it can excuse many sins.
By twistedly regarding terrorism as a military matter, you feed the industries profiting from death, disruption and destruction. NICE!
Try not to piss in your pants too much when the superterrorists are brought into this vulnerable country, fly through the bars and walls of their prisons and eat American babies on the Captital Mall. All done while taunting the hapless Democrats about their principles.
And I somehow suspect you haven't a clue as to why "jihadists" are recruited. Ask Sean! I bet he knows.
PATHETIC!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFC MAC
November 18, 2009 11:12 AM in reply to KeithL
"institutionalize terrorism"
The Islamofascists have done that quite nicely.
"By twistedly regarding terrorism as a military matter, you feed the industries profiting from death, disruption and destruction. NICE!"
Nah, let's treat it like a law enforcement problem. That'll scare them.
Don't worry too much about the internal threat from terrorists already living here, or the compromising of intelligence. Al Qaeda is gonna love the circus.
"And I somehow suspect you haven't a clue as to why "jihadists" are recruited".
Ask them yourself. Nidal Hasan, Yousef al-Khattab, Anwar al Awlaki would be pleased to tell you. Or hell, just pop in on Al Jazeera and MEMRI for the latest in jihad recruitment.
Something about killing infidels, and yearning for a world Caliphate in the name of "allah". The usual "religion of peace" stuff.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benjoya
November 14, 2009 11:53 AM in reply to sinz52
2001: 9-11 kills 3,000. Hold a trial, convict a few terrorists.
oh, THAT's what happened after 9/11! I thought we invaded afghanistan, distracted ourselves by invading iraq, gave up on catching bin laden, tortured people (a war crime!), and intercepted millions of americans' phone calls. guess that was all a dream. what a relief. also, as keith helpfully points out, try not to piss your pants too much. i realize all that crap about "land of the free and home of the brave" only works on suckers like me, but hopefully there are a more than a few of us left.
What violations of our principles caused the first WTC bombing in 1993?
um, military occupation of muslim holy land? just thinking out loud here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFC MAC
November 18, 2009 12:13 PM in reply to benjoya
"oh, THAT's what happened after 9/11! I thought we invaded afghanistan, distracted ourselves by invading iraq, gave up on catching bin laden, tortured people (a war crime!), and intercepted millions of americans' phone calls. guess that was all a dream. what a relief....i realize all that crap about "land of the free and home of the brave" only works on suckers like me, but hopefully there are a more than a few of us left"
Ooooooo lookie here. We got a gen-u-ine liberal effete who thinks the big, bad NSA listens in on his phone sex because they have nothing esle better to do.
Iraq wan't exactly a "distraction": http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/no-lies-about-iraq/
You want torture, sweetpea?
Try being trapped in burning sky-scrappers 90 stories high thanks to a crash caused by Islamic thugs who used planes like human-filled missiles. You’re calling your loved ones on a cell phone to tell them that you’re probably not going to make it. There’s no escape except the choice of being incinerated to death or jumping out of a window.
That is torture.
Liberal pansies are so wrapped around the axle over the poor, hapless muslim terrorists. There’s a few things they overlooked: What got them a trip to GITMO and the knowlege of terrorist plots endangering thousands of people.
I get your mindset, though: Leaving them to commit acts of terrorism is okay, using methods to extract that information, is “immoral”. That’s a good example of “moral relativism”.
Those methods proved to be very successful.
One of the plots they discovered was another one by Khalid Sheik Mohammad involving the use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into a building in Los Angeles. KSM later acknowledged before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast. Without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York.
Until they were caught, they were in the process of killing as many infidels as possible for “Allah”.
I don’t give a damn if they have to force feed a terrorist an ocean full of water to get information. The tactic works. It saves American lives.
We used appropriate torture on some of the worst Islamic terrorist scum on the planet. They weren’t run-of-the-mill peons; they were al Qaeda leaders. As a result, we got information that revealed the specific names, locations, and plans pertaining to future attacks.
If connecting a terrorist’s testicles to a 12 volt battery will save American lives, I’ve two things to say: The RED is POSITIVE. The BLACK is NEGATIVE.
I won’t lose a minute’s sleep, either.
"um, military occupation of muslim holy land? just thinking out loud here."
What "military occupation of a holy land"? In 1993, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait both allowed American bases. We didn't "occupy" anything other than the bases we operated. Other than that, we were part of a multinational peacekeeping force in Beirut.
We didn't invade and occupy Afghanistan and Iraq(again) until after 2001.
C'mon, the point you're really getting at is our support of the eeeeevil zionist Israel.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
November 14, 2009 11:54 AM in reply to sinz52
That's the price of living in a free country. We'll always be vulnerable to crime, to some degree. If you want barbaric justice with low standards of proof, try Saudi Arabia. You'll like it there. And of course we can see what military responses to criminal acts gets us: Iraq, Afghanistan. World War I was touched off by an assassination. The Nazis would kill a whole village for the death of one soldier. Now we're blowing up villages with drones in Pakistan. Great. I hope we're shooting for some higher organizing principle for administering human justice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Beagle
November 14, 2009 11:56 AM in reply to sinz52
Ho my! KeithL is right; where to begin?
The president said it best....
"...[we are] busy with our mop cleaning up somebody else's mess --- we don't want somebody sitting back saying, you're not holding the mop the right way... Why don't you grab a mop, why don't you help clean up?".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
November 16, 2009 9:26 AM in reply to sinz52
What could we have possibly done to inflame extremists before 1993?....
Seriously, that's your question?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benjoya
November 14, 2009 12:07 PM
anyway, bush proved the way to stop terrorist attacks is to give in to the terrorists' demands (ie, pulling US troops out of Saudi just as osama demanded). i'm just sayin'
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFC MAC
November 18, 2009 10:58 AM in reply to benjoya
We should have leveled several countries in the Middle East into parking lots on 12 Sept. 2001. THAT's how you fight an Islamic jihad. Just sayin'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benjoya
November 14, 2009 12:23 PM
ah, greenwald sums it up nicely:
This is literally true: the Right's reaction to yesterday's announcement -- we're too afraid to allow trials and due process in our country -- is the textbook definition of "surrendering to terrorists."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
November 14, 2009 10:21 PM in reply to benjoya
Yeah, that brilliant Glenn Greenwald, using a novel, never before uttered "the terrorists will win" argument to really show those righties. I think he actually made this same argument using two or three different names.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 15, 2009 8:33 AM in reply to masanf
Aren't you lost? The freeper sites are calling telling you to go home.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFC MAC
November 18, 2009 11:17 AM in reply to lousgirl84
DailyKos misses you too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benjoya
November 15, 2009 4:21 PM in reply to masanf
sounds like a "they hate us for our freedoms" type. no sense of irony.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFC MAC
November 18, 2009 11:15 AM in reply to benjoya
You're free to comment on here...what irony.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sagae
November 14, 2009 12:52 PM
Are there really going to be trials or will there be guilty pleas readily accepted by the judge (as with Moussaoui) which will leave much of the rest of the world saying nothing has ever been proven; the evidence has never been tested in a real court proceeding?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
inokeah
November 14, 2009 1:15 PM
This could backfire and the New Yorkers could be exposed to 9-11 times ten. I sure hope that the guys that are doing the flu prventative meds are not making this decision !
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
November 14, 2009 2:36 PM
I am no legal expert whatsoever, but common sense tells me that people are overreacting. I live in NYC and I have no problem having them here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe Wise
November 14, 2009 2:40 PM
really? did glen beck tell you that? where is your proof or reason, or it is just your fear?
if the u.s. justice system cannot handle a handful of terrorists, may be we should abolish it altogether!
what a nonsense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
November 14, 2009 10:25 PM in reply to Joe Wise
"Did Glen [sic] Beck tell you that"? WOw, what a stunning rebuttal that is.
The Obama Record: Record umeployment, record deficits, no legislative accomplishments.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
November 15, 2009 12:18 AM in reply to masanf
Unemployment and record deficits are Bush's legacy. That's part of the reason his party lost the last election and majorities in Congress. Details.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
baba2nde
November 14, 2009 5:33 PM
Rep. Moran's argument makes perfect sense but misses the point of fearmongers entirely, which is to nurture a nascent terror-industrial complex. Gen colin Powell warned about it back in 2007.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
November 14, 2009 10:20 PM
The hypocrisy here is staggering. If a Republican rep. had called Democrats un-American, this site would be in an uproar.
And Moran's typically idiotic screed doesn't seem to address the fact that Congress passed a law in 2006 for the express purpose of trying terrorists like the scumbags who are now being afforded the same rights as American citizens. Holder certainly knows of the law, as he has ordered several Guantanamo detainees to be tried by these commissions.
Furthermore, when discussing how "un-American" it is not to give these guys a soapbox in NY, he failed to mention the part about Obama and Holder already indicating these guys would not be set free if they were acquitted. Boy, indicating you will not be bound by the verdict of a jury really screams "America", eh, Rep. Moron.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jfields
November 15, 2009 4:18 AM in reply to masanf
masanf: I suppose you'd rather we just hold them forever without a trial of any kind?
You seem to be a lot better at calling others hypocrites than you are at proposing a workable solution that you would support.
By the way, you seem confused about the definition of "hypocrisy."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 15, 2009 8:32 AM in reply to masanf
Are you fucking kidding me. "If a Republican rep. had called Democrats un-American, this site would be in an uproar."
Rethhugs have called Democrats far worse than that. Where have you been the last year or so or twenty?????
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFC MAC
November 18, 2009 12:29 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Oh, come on. Where have YOU been? For GW's entire tenure the Democrats, anti-war protesters, and the MSM regurgitated some of the most visceral, rabid, anti-military, anti-American bullshit, ever. Ted Rall, Dick Durbin, Cindy Sheehan, Harry Reid, Cynthia McKinney, Patty Murray,Howard Dean, William Arkin,....jesus the list is endless.
You Demtards wrote the book on it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hoots
November 16, 2009 12:58 PM
I think the largest argument here is whether you consider terrorism to be a criminal act or an act of war. That's really what all this boils down to, and MasanF makes a good point: if we're to consider them common criminals, then isn't the Executive branch breaching it's constitutional authority by stating that the "suspects" would be detained indefinitely even if they were acquitted in a civilian court of law?
Senator Webb and many others believe this sets a VERY poor precedent of identifying these folks as common criminals and not war criminals. There has been no rational discussion from either side about holding them indefinitely without trial, which WOULD be ludicrous. Give them their day in a military tribunal, as we do with other war criminals.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
November 16, 2009 1:58 PM in reply to Hoots
Labeling them as "war criminals" makes them "warriors" or "soldiers." They are neither. They are mass murdering run of the mill heinous criminals. Why make them something that they are not? By calling it a "war" in any respect gives the thugs a major propoganda victory and recruiting tool. It's common sense, which is sorely lacking in the repuke party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nikkiru
November 16, 2009 8:08 PM in reply to Michael A
Yeah, it's sort of like labeling Eric Rudolph or Timothy McVeigh as some kind of warriors. If anything, it would feed the delusions of grandeur and higher purpose in their criminal psychoses.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
akw
November 16, 2009 10:41 PM
"It's un-American to hold anyone indefinitely without trial," Moran added. "It's against our principles as a nation."
KSM and his 4 terrorist buddies have been preparing for military trial for 3 years. Moran needs to go back and review WHY they haven't been tried yet. KSM and his attorneys have been holding up the trials, not the US.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFC MAC
November 18, 2009 10:55 AM
Newsflash for Moran: The mealy-mouthed Democrats are the quintessential "un-American" demagogues. Any citizen who won't kowtow to Obama's socialist policies is peppered with epithets like "evil mongers" (Harry Reid) and “rascist”, “nazi”
"teabaggers", by Nancy Pelosi and Obama himself.
Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer wrote an OpEd piece in USA Today, accusing the uppity masses of being "un American" for opposing ObamaCare. They sic SEIU thugs to assault—verbally and physically—those who oppose their health care scam.
Now they insult Americans who object to Islamic terrorists being tried in New York. They are not common criminals and have no business being tried in a civilian court, regardless of location. It’s not really the muslim terrorists that Holder and company plan to put on trial. It’s the CIA, the enhanced interrogation methods, and the Bush administration that kept us safe after 9/11, that B. Hussein wants to put on trial.
The current Democrat-controlled regime has done everything it can to squelch dissent. Obama is trampling all over the Constitution with the aid and support of the main stream media. He has an "enemies list" in the form of a DHS “domestic threat assessment” that includes Iraq War veterans like me. He’s called for his supporters to send “fishy misinformation” about his ObamaCare bill to a White House website.
THAT is un-American.
Moran needs to be beaten with a cluebat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 8, 2010 4:39 AM
I think this idea of waging a war on terrorism is less helpful than a policing approach. KSM and his ilk are criminals. They see themselves as heroic warriors, but we'll be doing ourselves a favor by treating them as criminals. That's how most of the Muslim world views people who kill non-combatants. If we start treating them like soldiers, people who represent some cause, Muslims are going to start looking at it that way too: us vs. them. Military framing glorifies and validates their cause. These guys are basically religiously fanatical criminals who want power, beyond the pale in their own culture.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?