At a press conference this morning, Attorney General Eric Holder said he hoped Washington would "leave the politics out of it" when considering his decision to transfer five suspected 9/11 conspirators from the detention center in Guantanamo Bay to New York City for trial in federal court.
His request fell on deaf ears. Before he had even stepped from behind the mics at the Justice Department, politicians on both sides had begun a partisan battle over his decision to charge and try some of the men allegedly responsible for the worst terror attack in U.S. history.
House Republican leader John Boehner was the most blatant with his claim that politics was behind Holder's claim.
"The Obama Administration's irresponsible decision to prosecute the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks in New York City puts the interests of liberal special interest groups before the safety and security of the American people," Boehner said in a statement. "This decision is further evidence that the White House is reverting to a dangerous pre-9/11 mentality - treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue and hoping for the best."
NRSC chair John Cornyn had a similar view.
"Reverting to a pre-9/11 approach to fighting terrorism and bringing these dangerous individuals onto U.S. soil needlessly compromises the safety of all Americans," he said in a statement. "Putting political ideology ahead of the safety of the American people just to fulfill an ill-conceived campaign promise is irresponsible."
At the press conference this morning, Holder said the decision to bring the detainees to U.S. soil was solely based on legal interpretations and the administration's goal of bringing the 9/11 terrorists to justice. Holder said despite his hopes, he expected his decision will become a political fight.
Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have criticized the Obama plan to close Guantanamo Bay by moving prisoners there to federal "supermax" prisons in the U.S. already holding domestic and international terrorists prosecutors have convicted in the past. Critics say any plan that puts a suspected terrorist on U.S. soil endangers Americans. A bipartisan and overwhelming majority in the Senate already expressed their disdain for such a plan in a vote earlier this year.
Holder said the five federal prosecutions announced today were a "significant step forward" toward closing Gitmo.
Holder will face some of the administration's Capitol Hill critics when he testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee next Tuesday. Committee chair Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) was one of the few lawmakers to release as statement praising the Holder move today.
"I have always believed that the nation's federal courts are capable of trying high profile terrorism and national security cases," he said. "They have proven time and time again to be up to the job."
"I hope these cases will move forward promptly," Leahy added. "By trying them in our federal courts, we demonstrate to the world that the most powerful nation on earth also trusts its judicial system - a system respected around the world."

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

CT Voter
November 13, 2009 12:56 PM
Why do Republicans have so little faith in our judicial system?
Is it because they'd ignore any law if it meant furthering their political agenda, and they assume everyone is that way?
I don't get it.
Or is it because they are, at heart, bullies, and therefore cowards?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
November 13, 2009 1:02 PM in reply to CT Voter
Yes.
And also the fact that a public trial and conviction disproves the lie they've been repeating for the last 8 years that the way to deal with terrorism is to shred the Constitution and the rule of law.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benny 4 facts
November 13, 2009 3:49 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
I get confused. Will the court be putting terrorism on trial or people who terrorize?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JimmyBobby
November 13, 2009 2:42 PM in reply to CT Voter
You got the coward thing right, all right. But face it, Americans are spoiled. Europeans have seen war up close, their cities bombed flat; they don't scare easily. We've had it soft, a couple of buildings knocked down and we're still freaking out about it eight years later.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
davewtf
November 13, 2009 4:46 PM in reply to JimmyBobby
Republicans/Conservatives are truly a bunch of fraidy-cats. Oh no, the mean terrorists will be put into supermax prisons on American soil?!? Be Afraid! Be VERY Afraid!
Bunch of Fucking Wimps!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SqueakyRat
November 14, 2009 8:10 AM in reply to JimmyBobby
I think it was Gore Vidal who said that Americans are the most easily frightened people in the world.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
November 14, 2009 10:23 AM in reply to SqueakyRat
That public fear everyone talks about here is just another prop the paid-off media uses to make others fearful.
I really do thing there's more courage than fear in our citizens, but without their patented "PUBLIC FEAR", the war mongers have few excuses for their industry.
Between the media and the manipulators, that public fear has been exaggerated, to increase that very fear among those who can't decide between fear and courage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JimmyBobby
November 15, 2009 1:38 AM in reply to JEP07
You've got that 100% right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dogger
November 13, 2009 3:47 PM in reply to CT Voter
They are thugs and cowards, but they also have had a harder time corrupting the Courts than they had corrupting the Congress. Real justice is hard enough, but the GOP wants to make it impossible for average Americans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
November 14, 2009 10:27 AM in reply to Dogger
"a harder time corrupting the Courts than they had corrupting the Congress."
Except in all matters corporate. Especially The Supremes. They have been irreversibly corrupted, at least for another generation, with corporate protectors, in a way that will impact the future more than we know.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jaycal
November 13, 2009 3:54 PM in reply to CT Voter
I don't think it's the Judicial Branch the Republicans distrust as much as the evidence gathering managed under the Bush Administration. One look at the Bush Administration's management of the Katrina recovery would scare anyone about their competence to put together a solid prosecution that could stand up to outside scrutiny.
As for the rest of the Senate's displeasure, I would say we have a perfect example of the benefits from having separate independent branches of government.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
November 13, 2009 1:01 PM
Republicans don't want the CIA torture documented in Federal Court.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
November 13, 2009 1:30 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
Baloney, don't give them credit for having an actual substantive reason. They just see an opening to bash Obama and the liberals as soft on Terrorism. Period.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
holyhandgrenaid
November 13, 2009 1:32 PM in reply to Dorn76
Which leads to the question: How is (in all likelihood) trying and convicting said terrorist and sentencing them to either life in solitary confinement in a supermax prison (preferable) or death (extraordinarily undesirable for a multitude of reasons) soft on terrorism?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TBender
November 13, 2009 1:57 PM in reply to holyhandgrenaid
Because these guys have super powers!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
November 13, 2009 3:35 PM in reply to TBender
I understand that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed can manipulate metal objects and bend them to his will, a la Magneto. They will have to build a special prison for him made entirely out of plastics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CogitoSoup
November 13, 2009 4:07 PM in reply to commie atheist
don't forget Freedom. It must be built using only the purest American Freedom and plastics made of oil extracted exclusively from Texan oil-wells.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
November 13, 2009 6:41 PM in reply to commie atheist
Just one word. Plastics. 'Nuff said.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
November 13, 2009 1:59 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
They will be in federal court. Problem is no one will see them, other than the judge and the lawyers. Fed courts have been dealing with concealing government conduct for decades and still doing trials. In fact, the state secrets bull that started this whole concept of secret evidence in trials started in the 50's concerning a lawsuit over military plane crash. The "classified" evidence was released and it revealed two points:
(1) there was no reason to conceal the evidence based on "state secrets." It contained no state secrets and was plain vanilla stuff.
(2) The evidence did reveal that the government was liable to the plaintiffs for negligence. That's why the court concealed it.
The states secrets bull should go the way of the dinosaur, but it definitely cuts against the lies of the king's administration and the repukes. There is no threat to national security or "our freedoms" if these murderers finally get a freaking trial after sitting in detention for almost a decade without a gd trial.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
November 13, 2009 2:02 PM in reply to Michael A
Major ambiguity. The supreme court case was from the 50's and the evidence was just recently declassified proving the two points. Lots of press on this horrendous conduct by the government in the right wing media. Nope, Zippo.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
November 14, 2009 10:39 AM in reply to Walter Mitty
I think you are both correct. Not only are the Republicans afraid of the public scrutiny this will bring on the whole Bush era, it is also one more, albeit lame, excuse to bash Obama.
Some of "them" are really in the legal hot seat, others or peripherally guilty, and still others are guilty of silently sitting by as the Constitution was shredded.
So, while they surely will use this to bash Obama, I would suggest many of "them" know their Bush era shenanigans are still comfortably within the statutes of limitations. The longer they can hold this off, the more their mischief fades with time and history.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
November 14, 2009 10:41 AM in reply to JEP07
By "both" I meant Walter and Dorn.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael Lafferty
November 13, 2009 1:52 PM
Right. Because as a former Army intelligence and military police officer, and one involved for years in civilian law enforcement, I've just got to say that the POST-9/11 approach to fighting terrorism has been so f$%^ing effective!
Whatever, morons. (That's aimed squarely at the Representatives Boener and King crowd.)
Targeted, funded, persistent law enforcement efforts—and NOT the application of brute military force—is how terrorist operations have been effectively dealt with for decades. The issues of law enforcement personnel being effectively 'asleep at the switch' before 9-11, apparently taking their queues from the nation's political leadership, does not suggest that armed intervention is an effective means to combat terrorist activities.
See this RAND report for an actual Department of Defense funded analysis of the issue:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG741-1
Why does anyone give the time of day to these Republican 'leaders' who have neither served in the US armed forces or as law enforcement officers?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 13, 2009 3:20 PM in reply to Michael Lafferty
Good question.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
runfastandwin
November 13, 2009 3:26 PM in reply to Michael Lafferty
Exactly. To somehow call this a "war" gives these suspects WAY TOO MUCH power. They are simply criminals, there's no reason we can't deal with them like every other criminal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
November 14, 2009 10:49 AM in reply to runfastandwin
That is what happens when a nation is addicted to war as economic stimulus for it's wealthy class.
There was time when "war" required two big antagonists bludgeoning each other with relatively similar forces and weapons.
Now, in our addicted hunger for those good ol' warbucks, we call criminal terrorists "enemy combatants", because there's no nation left big enough and strong enough to actually threaten us with conventional war.
So what's a military/congressional/industrial complex to do, when there's no real enemy left on the globe?
INVENT A N E W Enemy!
Hence,"enemy combatant."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NobleCommentDecider
November 13, 2009 5:14 PM in reply to Michael Lafferty
Right Bush did not keep us or anyone safer, except perhaps for bin Laden and his boys in Pakistan. The Bush/Cheney administration opened the George W. Bush College of Urban and IED Terrorism in Iraq, an educational institution predicated on having Americans there to blow up, no functioning government or Iraqi Army, and wide open unsecured munitions depots.
The Republicans are Tartuffels.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
November 13, 2009 6:27 PM in reply to Michael Lafferty
In the study of communications, this is called a "false equivalency" fallacy. Somebody details facts that are fairly easily recognized as "true" and some opponent spins out some fantasyland BS that is provably fantasyland BS, and both of these arguments are presented as both being equally deserving of attention.
In simple terms, BS and truth are presented side-by-side as if they are equals. That's the false equivalency.
And it is the very lifeblood of the corporate mass media, which is why low-information listeners/watchers come away thinking there must be some value to the dreadful BS, because why else would these CMM types spend so much time pumping it? This is the horrendous and slow death of analytical and revealing journalism on parade.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
November 14, 2009 10:53 AM in reply to TheRealFish
"BS and truth are presented side-by-side as if they are equals."
A.K.A Madison Avenue
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
par4
November 13, 2009 2:09 PM
My advice is don't put any faith in the Bush/Obama/Holder DoJ. Bush/Cheney are non-convicted war criminals and Obama/Holder are complicit in their crimes. The conventions against torture don't leave any 'wiggle room'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
November 13, 2009 2:13 PM
No matter what Obama says or does, the Repubs will go nuts and use it against him. That is why they want the major at Fr. Hood to be called a terrorist so that they can say that we were hit under Obama.
All the Repubs want to do is destroy Obama. We all know it by the way they refuse to do anything that might help our country and the American people. I must admit, I hate Republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
November 13, 2009 3:40 PM in reply to DownriverDem
Excellent point. Over and over you keep hearing about how Bush kept us safe from "terrorism" after 9/11 (except for the anthrax attacks, and the Virginia sniper, and...). By calling Hasan a terrorist they can start the meme of "Obama allowed a terrorist attack in the U.S.!!!!!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BillMcD
November 13, 2009 5:01 PM in reply to DownriverDem
The Ft. Hood shooting is definitely not terrorism. The targets were active-duty military, the goals as we understand them appear to have been motivated by the intent to limit the ability of Ft. Hood to continue deployment preparations (a military objective). As a friend of mine who's currently serving and stationed at Hood has said, this wasn't terrorism - it was an act of war. As such, being committed by a commissioned officer in the US Army, it's an act of treason under the 'aid and comfort' clause.
And that's the other part of why they want it labeled terrorism: if you have a demonstrable 'THIS is treason' to point to, it gets much harder for the lunatic pundits to call political maneuvering 'treason'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
November 14, 2009 11:03 AM in reply to DownriverDem
" they want the major at Fr. Hood to be called a terrorist so that they can say that we were hit under Obama."
EXCELLENT OBSERVATION!
The wingnuts DO seem bent on martyring this crazy killer.
From what I've read, it is not a religious but a personal event, little different from Columbine or some of those postal clerks from bygone years; an unstable individual ready to blow a gasket, and then something triggers the breakdown and they go postal.
It would certainly explain Faux News' pernicious persistence in calling him a terrorist, Jon Stewart's live-apology clip showed how desperate Ollie "get out of jail free" North and Sean Hannity seem to be, to make this psycho psychiatrist into a Jihadist martyr.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
charlie8080
November 13, 2009 3:10 PM
After the Al queda attacks in Madrid, Spain tried and convicted the Al queda terrorists there.
Apparently the Spaniards are quite a bit tougher than the Republicans in the United states. And one has to wonder what it is about America and its judicial system that the Republicans hate. Ironically, this would put the Republicans and Al queda on the same page.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
November 13, 2009 3:17 PM
Maybe Boehner and his fellow travellers who are too scared to try terrorists in the United States ought to make a motion on the floor to remove the words "and the home of the brave" from our national anthem.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
November 13, 2009 3:26 PM
What the Fuck ! Why is it a firestorm to follow the laws of the United States ? The republicans are just stupid people who don't even understand the structure of our political system. It's simply beyond them. But why should it surprise us, when it comes from a bunch of people who are largely entertained by the telling of fart jokes ?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dogger
November 13, 2009 3:43 PM
Why is this an issue? The Sixth Amendment (which has been ignored for 8 years now) is plain enough:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
November 13, 2009 3:45 PM
Irresponsible? Threat to public safety? I think that refers to ignoring the memo in August, 2000 that said "Bin Laden determined to attack U.S. using passenger planes." Or maybe it was rushing to attack Iraq after terrorists in Afghanistan bombed us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jfields
November 13, 2009 3:52 PM
I called Cornyn's office to comment on this. I noted that Sen. Cornyn did not explain the nature of the "danger" that is supposedly created by bringing these individuals to NYC to be tried, nor did he cite any previous examples where holding such trials proved to be a "danger." I also noted that although Cornyn is accusing Obama of playing politics, it is in fact Sen. Cornyn who is politicizing this issue, and that his actions are "regrettable."
I urge others who have similar thoughts to call Cornyn's office and do likewise: 202-224-2934.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Soldier
November 13, 2009 3:53 PM
Thank you, leaders of the GOP. Under your outstanding leadership, the USA has gone from a well-respected world power to a pansy that's scared of its own shadow. I'm ashamed to admit that I ever cast a ballot for you chickenhawks.
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Benjamin Franklin, 1755.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mmanion
November 13, 2009 3:57 PM
Where do they want them tried? Guantanamo? Don't the people of NY deserve to see justice done on their own soil? There's more to this over-the-top protest. I think they're afraid that the public won't be so understanding of their 'enhanced interrogation' techniques when they are publicly exposed in a court of law.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BluGrass
November 13, 2009 4:02 PM
These boys sure do have wobbly knees, don't they?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Armageddon T. Thunderbird
November 13, 2009 4:05 PM
Republicans put their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution.
They are hypocrites from the moment they take office.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael Lafferty
November 13, 2009 4:07 PM
I suppose that I am not at all surprised that the Republicans who mock the idea that more than 250,000 US airmen, marines, sailors and soldiers injected into the Middle East are a magnet for terrorists would somehow now attempt to project the idea that five accused terrorists are somehow such a strong magnet for terrorists that this places New Yorkers in clear and imminent danger.
As I've said: morons.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
November 13, 2009 4:12 PM
Oh Noes! The Republicans are right! The terrorists are going to break their chains, punch through their cell walls and fly to safety using the Iron Man suits they're going to secretly build from wads of toilet paper and their own spittle!
Republicans are sissies and from now on, any Republican I meet is getting a wedgie!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
November 13, 2009 4:13 PM
P.S. As a lifelong NYCer who lived through the 9/11 attacks and never once thought about moving, I hereby volunteer to change the apparently filled diapers that Cornyn and Boehner and Lieberman are now wearing. (Vitter has to change his own diaper.) Man up, you wimps.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
November 13, 2009 4:51 PM in reply to Clavis
I understand that Vitter pays top dollar for that type of service.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
go2goal
November 13, 2009 4:16 PM
The Republicans are more like an autocratic regime from China based on how they act. I don't understand how they became known as conservatives....if US conservatism is based on following and standing for the US constitution, then the Repubs are anything but conservative. They don't seem to believe in DEMOCRACY or our constitution...maybe they need to read it to refresh their memory.
Like when they refer to the scriptures, they selectively pick statements and blow them out of context.
Take the Iraq and Afghan wars....they supposedly support the war but they don't support instituting a fair and REAL military draft so that we have adequate number of troops for these wars. REASON: they believe in wars as long as their kids don't have to fight in them.
Repubs - especially the southern red states - are not patriotic Americans. They are anything but faithful to the US Constitution.
Perfect example: Sean Hannity....he's a real stand up guy - NOT. Chicken hawk of the Bush kind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JefferyK
November 13, 2009 4:22 PM
These trials are the beginning of the end of the "war on terror." I suspect that's what the Republicans are most afraid of.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Corambis
November 13, 2009 4:26 PM
I await Alan Grayson's pointed comments on the courage of the GOP leadership.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mistersnrub
November 13, 2009 4:49 PM
Hilarious how cowardly these self-professed tough guys are...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
unknowncitizen
November 13, 2009 4:50 PM
Yeah I guess the republicans are afraid that the war on terror sales pitch is losing it's luster (sad to think these goobers actually see death, bombing and fear as political opportunity, ain't it?) We can really see the desperation when they go all "he was so a jihadist terrorist" after the Fort Hood nightmare. Remember the old days of orange alerts and duct tape? good times, good times.
Having these guys hauled before a judge (in shackles no doubt), tried and punished to the full extent of the law and probably sent to rot and be forgotten in some Godforsaken concrete and steel dungeon -- my God, hide the children!
Run and hide! I hear their bringing back
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EdA
November 13, 2009 5:12 PM
So much for "land of the free and home of the BRAVE"! Oh Mommy, please protect me from these horrible terrorists who have no more respect for "traditional American values" than I do.
But then, when the Republicans say "Support our troops," they really mean "Support our defense contractors."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LeeJo
November 13, 2009 5:28 PM
Trials in the American Courts for those who we believe are responsible for killing thousands of Americans. American justice is something that we should be proud to apply to anyone we are willing to place in jeopardy of loosing their life. If we can not be confident in our courts in the most difficult cases how can we proclaim that other countries, Iraq to mention only one, should establish democracies with independent judicial systems?
I for one applaud this courageous move by the Justice Department. I think they have lived up to their name today.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brooklyn Democrat
November 13, 2009 5:29 PM
Apparently lost on these nitwit reactionaries is the fact that NYC has already handled this kind of thing. The 1993 bombers are behind bars. What are these fools so afraid of the American justice system?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LeeJo
November 13, 2009 5:31 PM
Trials in the American Courts for those who we believe are responsible for killing thousands of Americans, how schocking!
American justice is something that we should be proud to apply to anyone we are willing to place in jeopardy of loosing their life. If we can not be confident in our courts in the most difficult cases how can we proclaim that other countries, Iraq to mention only one, should establish democracies with independent judicial systems?
I for one applaud this courageous move by the Justice Department. I think they have lived up to their name today.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
November 13, 2009 5:40 PM
Political firestorm?-really? Holder's decision should be applauded. When an individual commits an attack on American soil that suspect ought tried and prosecuted on American soil i.e. the location of the attack. It is inappropriate for the reslugs and their cohorts in the media to be politicizing AG Holder's decision.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JadeZ
November 13, 2009 6:32 PM
How do know this man is a terrorist if he has never had a trial?
Because bush said so?
There is something that violates the human spirit when people some children, can be deprived of their rights ,held and tortured and never be charged or convicted of a crime while people turn their backs on that reality.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
November 13, 2009 6:43 PM
David Brooks was almost hyperventilating about this on ATC this afternoon in the point-counterpoint with E.J. Dionne.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fangorn1
November 13, 2009 11:16 PM
I recently read "The Dark Side" by Jane Meyer. This should be required reading for anyone still trying to justify the Bush/Cheney "post 9/11 terrorism strategy". Maybe half of the original Gitmo detainees were totally innocent and finally released. No convictions for anyone, and coerced, unreliable evidence against real terrorists. I sure hope the opposition isn't squawking to cover their incompetence
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fangorn1
November 14, 2009 1:23 AM
I recently read "The Dark Side" by Jane Meyer. This should be required reading for anyone still trying to justify the Bush/Cheney "post 9/11 terrorism strategy". Maybe half of the original Gitmo detainees were totally innocent and finally released. No convictions for anyone, and coerced, unreliable evidence against real terrorists. I sure hope the opposition isn't squawking to cover their incompetence
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JoeTheMechanic
November 14, 2009 1:56 AM in reply to fangorn1
There will be torture prosecutions. Inch by inch, Obama is dragging this country, kicking and screaming, back to the rule of law.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
November 14, 2009 11:12 AM
Do the Republicans realize how weak this makes them look, when they act so fearful about trying these criminals???
You'd think the Republicans, loyal Americans all, would want to kick their soft teeth down their whiney throats.
Instead they cower like scared rabbits.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?