Beyond the disagreement I have fundamentally with giving our enemies essentially the same rights we have as american citizens, I can not believe Axelrod and others couldn't convience Obama how bad of an idea this is. There will be protests of 9/11 family members right outside the court. I just can not see an upside to this whether from my own personal opinion or from Obama's perpective.

Yeah. It is always better to pretend we don't actually have laws and go about just torturing and detaining people. Makes us look so incredibly cool and strong.

NOT!

enemies of the state who are not american citizens are not eligible for the laws that govern this country. That is a something special between the government and the people who it represents. To extend our social contract to AQ members is a horrible mistake.

Good afternoon Jeff. There may be valid arguments for both sides of this argument, but the only real arguments I hear on BB today, is the argument that fear of attack should drive our justice system

my argument is simple. I do not believe foreign enemies of which we are at war with are granted rights that are set aside for american citizens and those who visit our country through legal means. And second, I just can't see why Obama would want to fight with the family members of 9/11.

not.

jiffypoop rarely knows what it is talking about

I suppose someone will have to doa head count on the "families" before long

November 13, 2009 MSNBC: Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Lawrence O'Donnell guest host

Dave N.: The famed 9/11 widow -- one of the people who helped force the creation of the 9/11 Commission and one of the leaders of the 9/11 victims' families organization -- went on with Lawrence O'Donnell last night and countered the right's favorite new fearmongering meme, namely, that holding civil trials for the 9/11 conspirators in New York might set them free.

O'Donnell: Some of the victims' families of 9/11 have indicated that they're not pleased with this move to New York. How do you react to this?

Breitweiser: I think those families seem to be indicating a sense of anger or fear. And I think really, to be feeling those types of things, it doesn't fit my personality. I think that that's bowing to the terrorists. I think there is no better place than the Southern District of New York to be having these prosecutions heard. I think it's an open forum. And I think it speaks to the world that we are in fact a nation of laws. And frankly, I think, after eight years of the Bush administration we've got a lot of work in restoring our legitimacy to the rest of the world, that we are indeed a just nation that follows the rule of law.

Take that, Bill O'Reilly.

"yep, they are all outraged alrighty"

Jeff didn't mention "all", nor did he intimate such.

But then, you're a bit too timid to challenge Jeff directly.

So you believe this country should have an apartheid justice system with different rules for foreigners.?

i believe our social contract only extends to those who visit here legally. This ofcourse doesn't mean that we can't treat people with respect, but I feel our court system is for us yes.

Our nation has always done that and just in recent history we have pretended that we turned the page from our past.... ;-)

Uncle Maddy

Don't you remember?

Dems think that every act of terror, any act of war.......is just another street crime and belongs in civilian courts.

I was told this morning that these are only murdering sprees and not act of terrorism. I guess Islamic nutters can not be terrorist anymore since Obama became King of the retard world... :-)

Uncle Maddy

yeppers..

Now I've heard that murdering sprees by jihadists yelling "ALLAHU AKBAR" are not terror, that William Ayers is not a terrirst because nobody died when he bombed the Pentagon, and that "Uncle Tom" is not racist invective because it's only directed at one individual at a time.

you people just talk out your asses. Our laws and the supreme law, the constitution, including the bill of rights, dont apply extraterritorially. they do not apply to actions taken outside of the US, and dont apply to enemy combatants captured overseas. you can decide to voluntarily confer these rights on them if you want, which is what obobo holder decided, but why would you?

BTW, the US courts have not come close to requiring this. the only thing that has been required is basic due process and that arose because of their detention on US soil [i.e., gitmo]. If they were kept on foreign soil, there likely would not have been a genuine issue of due process or habeus corpus. and if we kept them on foreign soil under the custody and control of the egyptians, there would be no issue whatsoever. [we are still doing this]. but bush wanted to be humane. the egyptians are not. fucking moderates.

KSM could have been and should have been tried before a military tribunal.