Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Not 1 terrorist prosecuted under new military laws since 9/11
Outsports Discussion Board > Outsports > Politics & Religion
fantomas
How on earth is this possible? Aren't we supposed to be winning the "war on terror," which isn't a "metaphor," although W's new commercial shows "wolves" (which haven't killed a single U.S. citizen in the last 100 years) as opposed to Osama bin Laden (not a metaphor). Someone please explain....

NY Times: After 9/11, a secret rewriting of military law


QUOTE
WASHINGTON - In early November 2001, with Americans still staggered by the Sept. 11 attacks, a small group of White House officials worked in great secrecy to devise a new system of justice for the new war they had declared on terrorism.

Determined to deal aggressively with the terrorists they expected to capture, the officials bypassed the federal courts and their constitutional guarantees, giving the military the authority to detain foreign suspects indefinitely and prosecute them in tribunals not used since World War II.

The plan was considered so sensitive that senior White House officials kept its final details hidden from the president's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, and the secretary of state, Colin L. Powell, officials said. It was so urgent, some of those involved said, that they hardly thought of consulting Congress.

White House officials said their use of extraordinary powers would allow the Pentagon to collect crucial intelligence and mete out swift, unmerciful justice. \"We think it guarantees that we'll have the kind of treatment of these individuals that we believe they deserve,\" said Vice President Dick Cheney, who was a driving force behind the policy.

But three years later, not a single terrorist has been prosecuted. Of the roughly 560 men being held at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, only 4 have been formally charged. Preliminary hearings for those suspects brought such a barrage of procedural challenges and public criticism that verdicts could still be months away. And since a Supreme Court* decision in June that gave the detainees the right to challenge their imprisonment in federal court, the Pentagon has stepped up efforts to send home hundreds of men whom it once branded as dangerous terrorists.
This is part one of a series of articles; the next will talk about the failure, I gather, in the prosecutions.
____
Emphasis mine / *Those activist judges....

[ October 23, 2004, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
auNsoccer
YES, those EVIL conservative activist judges that gave Bush the 2000 election, ruled against him to give more rights to the Gitmo detainees. hhhhhmmmmmmm.
fantomas
Miss the point? The issue isn't the "evil" conservative judges--btw, who are you talking about? Sandra Day O'Connor? Anthony Kennedy? Both them voted to strike down the hateful sodomy laws. Certainly not liberals Ruth Bader Ginsberg, David Souter, John Paul Stevens, or moderate Stephen Breyer--but THE ADMINISTRATION!

Did you even READ the article? It focuses on the secret cabal in the White House that went beyond either military or federal criminal and civil law to set up these secret courts. And the result? NOT ONE TERRORIST OUT OF THE THOUSANDS captured in their DRAGNET HAS BEEN PROSECUTED! NOT ONE! Spain captured and has begun to prosecute many of the masterminds of its terrorist attack. Yet three years on, the incompetent, dangerous people heading our government have screwed up things and contravened our laws. And to what end???
MarcusF
QUOTE
fantomas:
Yet three years on, the incompetent, dangerous people heading our government have screwed up things and contravened our laws. And to what end???
Why, to keep themselves in power, of course. Isn't that self-evident?
Veritas
Of course, had any of these guys been tried, fantomas would have been in here screaming that they were tried. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
jqueer
QUOTE
Veritas:
Of course, had any of these guys been tried, fantomas would have been in here screaming that they were tried. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Only if they were tried in the manner we fear the Bush administration would try them. If they were tried in open court, under proper rules of evidence, there would be those who would still complain, but their accusations would have no teeth. If we liberals are really the enemy of freedom and democracy the right makes us out to be, why give us more amunition to fire back at the administration? A simple trial would take a lot of wind out of the sails of the naysayers.
fantomas
QUOTE
Veritas:
Of course, had any of these guys been tried, fantomas would have been in here screaming that they were tried. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Are you MIB? Or William? If you're either one, I miss the originals. MIB, do come back so we can discuss the ongoing debacle called the Daley administration. William, despite your eruptions, you could be quite funny. Actually William still does post in baseball, so...well, MIB, if this is you, do come back under the old guise as well.
fantomas
QUOTE
Veritas:
Of course, had any of these guys been tried, fantomas would have been in here screaming that they were tried. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Are you MIB? Or William? If you're either one, I miss the originals. MIB, do come back so we can discuss the ongoing debacle called the Daley administration. William, despite your eruptions, you could be quite funny. Actually William still does post in baseball, so...well, MIB, if this is you, do come back under the old guise as well.

And truthfully, prosecuting terrorists is hardly "cake." If they felt the need to create such draconian, extra-legal structures, can't they at least have shown them, AFTER THREE YEARS, to have been effective? As with everything with W & Co., it's ineptness, incompetence, disaster!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2012 Invision Power Services, Inc.