By Barb Shelly, Kansas City Star editorial page columnist
I don't see why John Boehner is accusing Eric Holder of exercising political motives with his decision to move the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four co-defendants to federal court in New York City. Given Republicans' skill in whipping up peoples' fears, the attorney general's decision is bound to be hugely unpopular.
But really, where better to bring the self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind to justice than in the U.S. courts? Let the justice system and the citizens of the nation he so despises determine his fate.
Follow Barb Shelly on Twitter.
Delicious
Digg
feckless are
you completely brain dead, wait I think you already answered that. From your copying of the original post:
"1) Insulting to each and every American citizen."
Where does it say every American thinks this is so? I believe it is a statement of an opinion not a lib mind reading post. If someone says that burning the American flag is a insult to all Americans, are they also wrong?
You have been quite entertaining, this is the picture of the left we all need to remember in 2010 and 2012.
Nice smokescreen, Woody.
But you still didn't answer the question.
1) Insulting to each and every American citizen.
How does chazzykc know that? Did he ask each and every one?
How do you know it's insulting to every American, Woody? Did you ask, or are you mindreading?
Feckless - can you think of anyone who might
want to extend our Constitutional rights to foreign Islamic terrorists? Do you? Oh, I forgot, Obama & Holder think it wise. Actually, their motives are my biggest concern. Are they really motivated in extending our Const. rights, or are they looking to use the terrorist's defense to punish Bush administration?
.
I think Chazzykc was making an assumption. And I can't imagine his assumption being wrong, but maybe you can.
feckless your pathetic
posts shows why your question was inane. The reason why it is insulting to every American is you are granting the rights have been fought for and protected to people who hate the very nature of the rights. These are foreigners who attacked our country and killed our citizens who deserve the protection of the Constitution.
Based on the logic that these lowlifes are covered under the Constitution then who would not be covered? Please define the limitations if any of our system of govt and laws covering others. Do they apply in canada, mexico, cuba, europe? Is it only when you think it is so? And let's use another stupid question to expose yours:
Can you provide proof that he is wrong?
Also please provide proof that these individuals want to be covered by US law.
I disagree with the reaction to these individuals actions also, there are far to many afghanis still alive. Also it is time to destroy the poppy fields entirely and then offer help. If they don't want it then leave them on their own.
Also let's save money, close all our military bases outside the US a create new ones on both of our boarders. Get the dual benefit of greater security and live fire exercises protecting the USA. Not to mention the economic impact of the jobs that go along with military bases. It would be beautiful to watch the economic impact in europe.
feekless shows
his lib roots with an inane question to distract from the point. Is the writer projecting a bit in their applying of an opinion they have to others, yes. Can anyone but a lib liar or dimwit figure this out, yes.
As for the opinion of 9/11 survivors, the nyt contacted many of them to ask, they almost all felt that giving the rights of the Constitution to terrorists did diminish what it means to be an American.
Gee, Woody
You constantly decry lib posts that drip with hate, yet you've just posted an ad hominem attack ("lib liar and dimwit"). Could it be that I've exposed chazzykc's faulty logic and you don't like it? Is that why it's an inane question?
Read chazzy's post again, Woody. He says it's "Doubly insulting to all the loved ones of the 9/11 victims who will now be unneccessarily exposed for months to a "simpsonesque", parade of folly."
"All" does not equal "almost all" (Besides, you can't believe everything you read in the MSM now, can ya, Woody?)
I'll give you credit for partially answering part of the question, Woody, but I noticed you still didn't touch this part of it:
1) Insulting to each and every American citizen.
How does chazzy know this? Did he ask each and every US citizen? If not, then he's mindreading - something else you abhor, Woody.
An Ideologue's laughable solution .......
Obama, Holder and Babs all are willing to put politics before prudence with this inexcusable and reprehensible decision.
In a federal court the defense will be allowed to call witnesses and documents and enter them into public record.
While that seems fair and benign, it is neither.
The granting of constitutional rights to these murderous terrorists is:
1) Insulting to each and every American citizen.
2) Doubly insulting to all the loved ones of the 9/11 victims who will now be unneccessarily exposed for months to a "simpsonesque", parade of folly.
3) A potential revelation for Al Qaeda as methods, techniques and strategies used in the tracking, capture and interrogations of these admitted murderers as well as those still pursued are presented and televised for the almost exclusive benefit of our enemies.
3) Providing our enemies another recruiting bonanza of propaganda.
These are the same 5 who have all confessed to the crimes that they are charged with and who asked to be put to death (martyred) last winter.
That is my apolitical response to the very political plan supported by Obama/Holder/Shelly.
The real political interpretation is that this action is designed to parade the Bush administration operatives and policy makers in front of the world through a court proceding.
That in turn will enable the impressionable and non jurisdictional international courts, who have no access to evidence and who share the Obama/Holder/Babs world view of America's criminality.
This federal courtroom then will become but another canvas for progressive "America bashing". It's just one more giant step in Obama's marching our great nation towards banana republic status.
Ms Shelly is an ideological buffoon or simply an idiot if she is unable to see those realities.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Solutions
The granting of constitutional rights to these murderous terrorists is:
1) Insulting to each and every American citizen.
2) Doubly insulting to all the loved ones of the 9/11 victims who will now be unneccessarily exposed for months to a "simpsonesque", parade of folly.
How do you know? Did you ask all 300 million of us? Did you ask all the friends and relatives of the 9/11 victims?
Riiiiiiight! Barb's post is a political screed but your response is not. Good to know.
So Feckless - please explain
why it's better to try them in civilian court in NY than a military tribunal. Just want to know.
What explanation?
Where did I say it's better to try them in a civilian court in NY than a military tribunal? I'm not a lawyer and I don't opine about things that I don't know.
So, back to the question I asked:
1) Insulting to each and every American citizen.
2) Doubly insulting to all the loved ones of the 9/11 victims who will now be unneccessarily exposed for months to a "simpsonesque", parade of folly.
How does chazzy know this? Did he ask everyone?
Chazzykc -
I think it's BOTH!
Just ask if they
are liberals, the anger and hatred seem to be the same. Just read this blog.
Just curious....
What exactly would constitute a jury of his peers for a confessed terrorist?
Ms. Shelly's hatred of anything Republican is just too funny for words.
Jury
Bill Ayers and his buddies might be available for jury duty.
Kenm / Juanell -
There are plenty of liberals who hate America that could be on the jury. They may not be terrorists, but they have the hate, so they would do.
Military Commisions
Military commisions is the proper court to determine the fate of KSM. He is NOT a common criminal, he is a man who waged a terror war on our country.
Trying him in NY only serves one purpose; it allows KSM's lawyers the opportunity to paint the US as the reason for KSM's actions, they will attempt to make him a victim, and it will undermine all the intelligence systems we have in place to protect us.
Dont give KSM the floor by allowing this mega OJ Simpson like trial to take place in NY. Try him in a military commission without the camaras, by men and women who will ensure he gets a trial appropriate to his crime.
And then shoot him.