Whichever way these trials turn out, the Democrats will not have been perceived to have earned a victory.

Either they are found guilty, which they are overwhelmingly presumed to be, and they are then locked up forever- Bush's plan all along. The fact that Bush's military forces did the hard work, investigating, interrogating, and detaining these men lawfully cannot be overlooked or forgotten. Bush got his man.

If they are found not guilty, or some walk away on technicality, 0bama will be deemed as to have screwed the pooch, extended far too many rights to battlefield combatants, and will have surely caused America to be less secure than previous.

So the choice for Dems: credit Bush with the capture of dangerous killers who needeed to be locked away forever, or let one or more of them free.

You guys better pray 0bama at least gets to share the credit for a guilty verdict on each and every one. The alternative is an electoral dead zone for Democrats and 0bama's second term.

This is about bringing criminals to justice. Dems are doing what the cowardly torturers Bush/Cheney did NOT do. In a democracy, we don't lock people up without having a trial and a verdict. Your boys didn't want to give the detainees POW status because they could then be released after the conflict without even being charged with a crime. These are civilians who were arrested by the CIA in Pakistan and they are being brought back to the U.S. for their trials.

There have only been 3 terrorists convicted by a military commission and 195 by the Federal Courts. The Justice Department makes the call - no one else, no you, not me, not even the families of the 9/11 victims. This is the way it is and has nothing to do with re-election of Dems as they are showing great courage in believing in the American judicial system - unlike you fraidy cat rightwingnuts who think America can't handle it and you don't mind letting the world know you don't trust democracy.

ErictheRight:

Re: NY terror trials: Dems cannot win

Whichever way these trials turn out, the Democrats will not have been perceived to have earned a victory.

Either they are found guilty, which they are overwhelmingly presumed to be, and they are then locked up forever- Bush's plan all along. The fact that Bush's military forces did the hard work, investigating, interrogating, and detaining these men lawfully cannot be overlooked or forgotten. Bush got his man.

If they are found not guilty, or some walk away on technicality, 0bama will be deemed as to have screwed the pooch, extended far too many rights to battlefield combatants, and will have surely caused America to be less secure than previous.

So the choice for Dems: credit Bush with the capture of dangerous killers who needeed to be locked away forever, or let one or more of them free.

You guys better pray 0bama at least gets to share the credit for a guilty verdict on each and every one. The alternative is an electoral dead zone for Democrats and 0bama's second term.

ErictheRight:

Whichever way these trials turn out, the Democrats will not have been perceived to have earned a victory.

Either they are found guilty, which they are overwhelmingly presumed to be, and they are then locked up forever- Bush's plan all along. The fact that Bush's military forces did the hard work, investigating, interrogating, and detaining these men lawfully cannot be overlooked or forgotten. Bush got his man.

If they are found not guilty, or some walk away on technicality, 0bama will be deemed as to have screwed the pooch, extended far too many rights to battlefield combatants, and will have surely caused America to be less secure than previous.

So the choice for Dems: credit Bush with the capture of dangerous killers who needeed to be locked away forever, or let one or more of them free.

You guys better pray 0bama at least gets to share the credit for a guilty verdict on each and every one. The alternative is an electoral dead zone for Democrats and 0bama's second term.

So...basically you're saying:

"Bush caught 'em, but did nothing but lock-up and torture to "bring 'em to justice", and it's up to Obama to "work with that" during the prosecution. And if he succeeds...he's got to SHARE the "credit".

You're such a silly buffoon, Eric.

;-)

That gets them their fair trial, and at far less expense and risk to Americans.

These men detained do not live in a democracy, nor do they operate under the workings and limitations of one. They are NOT Americans and do not fall under the strict interpretation of the Geneva conventions either- therefore they should NOT be given an American criminal trial.

Just to let you know, if these men are tried under the rules of the American law enforcement system, there should be no possible fair way they get convicted. You might call that "courage", I consider it rash foolishness and a complete change in the rules and evidentiary requirements of the military.

Because the military commissions have less stringent rules. Criminals who commit a crime on U.S. soil stand trial on our soil. They were not in the military - they were civilians. I'm glad you don't get to make the decisions in these cases. Under Clinton the WTC bombers were tried, convicted and punished in the Federal system. Don't be a fraidy cat - the grown ups know what they are doing. Torture and indefinite detention without a trial is NOT what is done in a democracy - regardless of what Bush/Cheney thought. They were wrong.

ErictheRight:

Re: The military tribunals route was best

That gets them their fair trial, and at far less expense and risk to Americans.

These men detained do not live in a democracy, nor do they operate under the workings and limitations of one. They are NOT Americans and do not fall under the strict interpretation of the Geneva conventions either- therefore they should NOT be given an American criminal trial.

Just to let you know, if these men are tried under the rules of the American law enforcement system, there should be no possible fair way they get convicted. You might call that "courage", I consider it rash foolishness and a complete change in the rules and evidentiary requirements of the military.

He can't take the credit for investigating, stopping, and detaining them. So all he's doing is taking the major political risk of a criminal jury case, which is simply an absurd notion. A military trial was his best route and 0bama chose against it. Total foolishness which can only hurt Dems.

ErictheRight:

He can't take the credit for investigating, stopping, and detaining them. So all he's doing is taking the major political risk of a criminal jury case, which is simply an absurd notion. A military trial was his best route and 0bama chose against it. Total foolishness which can only hurt Dems.

What?

Are you saying the invasion of Iraq didn't "produce" these guys?

It was "investigation" all along?

Nope. I can't believe it!

And one more thing...

"A military trial was his best route..."

How come Bush didn't do it?

Clinton had crimes committed on American soil, he had FBI, ATF and CIA investigators covering the attack from all angles. Our military doesn't have remotely that level of evidence detection, processing, or presentation... nor do they need it to do their jobs with amazing effectiveness.

We simply cannot prosecute overseas conspiracies in our trial courts in America.

Of course there were terror cells and terror cell leaders without our invasion of Iraq.

There was no rush, no "right to swift trial" for these scum. He should give the military sufficient time to present the detained for military trial.

ErictheRight:

Clinton had crimes committed on American soil, he had FBI, ATF and CIA investigators covering the attack from all angles. Our military doesn't have remotely that level of evidence detection, processing, or presentation... nor do they need it to do their jobs with amazing effectiveness.

We simply cannot prosecute overseas conspiracies in our trial courts in America.

Are you insane? You say this:

"Our military doesn't have remotely that level of evidence detection, processing, or presentation... "

But they're more fit to prosecute?

Then there's the "classic" con fall back..."Clinton...awk"!

Are pretending that the trillions bush's wars will cost this nation was the price for capturing these suspects ? Beside KSM was captured by the Pakistanis not the US.

ErictheRight:

There was no rush, no "right to swift trial" for these scum. He should give the military sufficient time to present the detained for military trial.

Nothing was "rushed". Nothing was "swift". And....

NOTHING WAS DONE!!! 'cept torture.

Dude, you're really gonna have to come up with some better shit than this.

partizan:

Are pretending that the trillions bush's wars will cost this nation was the price for capturing these suspects ? Beside KSM was captured by the Pakistanis not the US.

Wow!

John Belushi KSM was nabbed by Pakistan?