Friday, November 13, 2009

Mastermind of 9/11 to be brought back to NYC for trial

If you didn't hear today, the Obama administraton has decided to bring Khalid Sheik Muhammed (and four other alleged terrorists) to New York City to be tried on criminal charges.

What does everybody think about this?


  1. They are accused criminals. They should be tried in a court of law.

  2. They should be tried at Gitmo, the taxpayers already have to foot the entire bill for their defense, now we get to foot the bill for a huge security presence.

  3. It's a double-edged sword, isn't it? Because we are the United States of America and this heinous crime happened on our soil, we have to try these individuals at whatever expense. "Innocent until proven guilty" and it just sickens me that it will cost so much to go through this process and they will probably end up with the very best attorneys representing them. I think it is ludicrous.

  4. I think you're all missing one idea here. Al qaeda declared war against us. We fought back. We captured these pieces of crap. And al Qaeda has not yet surrendered. That means they are prisoners of war. We don't have to do anything with them until the war is over, let alone give them a civilian trial.

  5. Well, DJ, either way, we still have to house them at the cost of the tax payers. Why wait? The sooner they are convicted, the sooner they get the needle and the sooner we are no longer paying to house them, feed them, or pick up medical expenses. I also don't see them as POW's. More like war criminals. Big difference.

    Is it okay that we have POW's in Iraq? After all, WE invaded their country when it should have been Afghanistan to begin with.

  6. Katrina, I hate to argue with you because I like you so much ... :)

    George Bush's biggest failure with Iraq was communication, and letting himself get tied down to the WMD's. If you go back in time, the main reason that Bush started the dialogue on Iraq was their violation of all the terms of surrender in 1991. We could have deposed Saddam in desert storm I, but did not because of numerous promises made by Iraq at the time.

    Saddam was violating all the terms of surrender, including shooting at our pilots during fly-overs, inspection violations, human rights violations, etc. We had every right to enforce the surrender terms without the WMD. Unfortunately, in an ill-advised effort to win over the U.N., Bush put forth his info on WMD and was forever tied to that. It was foolish because the wusses in the U.N. were never going to be convinced, and by arguing WMD (unnecessarily) Bush opened the argument for illegitimacy (when they were never found), when we had every right to take out Saddam for violating the terms of surrender.

    But since you're beating on Bush, how about a couple questions for Obama.

    1. During the campaign, Obama talked and talked and talked and talked about withdrawing from Iraq. How's that going so far?

    2. During the campaign, Obama talked and talked and talked and talked about how Afghanistan was the real war. So why is Obama delaying on his general's request for more troops?

  7. 1. If you had paid attention, you would have heard Obama say that he couldn't end the war in Iraq immediately. If memory serves me right, he gave a guideline of 16 months. It's only been eleven.

    2. He's not happy with the options given to him. He's requested more. Is it really a bad thing to be thorough when we are dealing with the possible loss of our service men and womens lives?

    I wasn't really bashing on Bush. I was trying to make a point. As for the war....sure...Bush Sr dropped the ball big time in the early 90's. However, after 9-11 happened, the target should have been Afghanistan first, Iraq second. Not the other way around. Is the world a better place without the evil dictator...sure. But the whole beginning of that war was based on lies. And then it was mishandled from day one. No planning, no thought. Just run in swinging our swords. THAT was the biggest mistake. There seriously had to be better ways to go about it. Nobody took the time to find them. As an added bonus, we made the world hate us because of the rash actions. We were on a headhunt. Didn't matter whose.

    Regardless, we are in this situation and we have to deal with it. We have to put a little trust in our leader to get us through it relatively intact.

  8. During the democratic primary, all the candidates played "name that tune" with Iraq. I can end that war in 24 month. No I can end that war in 16 months. Obama promised 16 months. As you mentioned, eleven months have passed. He could not have them out, nor would it be responsible, in the five remaining months.My conclusion: he made a campaign promise to appeal he never intended to carry out in order to appeal to the far left of his party. Or in other words, he played politics with our military.

    Regarding Afghanistan, the optins given him all involve the commitment of more troops to Afghanistan - which would infuriate the far left - which he is not willing to do. In the general election, Obama called Afghanistan the "real war" as a way to tear down McCain. But now that he has to administer that war, he would rather placate the left than just listen to his generals and take care of business. The general Obama hand-picked is saying he needs 80,000 more troops. What controversy is there with this?

    Final point: you mentioned that Bush made the whole world hate us. Katrina, they hate us regardless. We are (or at least were) the world's sole superpower. Other countries don't like that. Obama promised to heal all these old woulds, yet: the muslim world is now burning effigies of Obama, North Korea and Iran are still ignoring us on nukes, China and Russia still vote against us on everything in the U.N. They will be against us no matter what, so we might as well be strong instead of going around apologizing for everything.

  9. Not to add fuel to the fire but to claim that al Qaeda captives are POWs would infer that al Qaeda is an army rather than a terrorist organization.

    Also to claim they are POWs would mean that their treatment would have to be inline with the Geneva Convention regulations regrading POW treatment.

    IMO, if all the vital information has been extracted form them during their stay in Gitmo, then the most American thing to do is give them their trial, hoping that the damning information the prosecution will use against them was obtained via legal means.

  10. Good point 8:35. If they're terrorists, we should just kill them.

    I'm going to add fuel to the fire too. Khalid Sheik Muhammed fired his attorneys, confessed in open court, and asked for execution many months ago. Why are we giving him a trial at all?

    This "trial" is being done under the guise of fairness. Yet - Eric Holder guaranteed convictions. How is that fair?

    Second, does anybody believe that if KSM is acquitted, he'll be set free and let loose on the streets? Hell no. We'll just charge him with other stuff, which means by definition this entire trial thing is a stunt.

    Three, this trial conveniently will allow sleazy liberal defense attorneys the opportunity to subpoena former CIA guys and question them about waterboarding, "torture," and all the other crap he far left complains about. Obama's administration doesn't have the political nerve to prosecute these guys (as his base wants), so they'll have a dumb show trial and let defense attorneys do the dirty work. This will not be a trial of the 9/11 terrorists, but of the Bush administration and its interrogation techniques (more payback to the far left).

  11. That is a good group of points...

    Although domestic murders have asked to be put to death without being obliged, never really understood it either...

    The trial would be a circus, but can we really go back against the values the US was founded on? The British executed colonial "terrorists" during the revolution without trail. At best its a sticky situation, but when you have a set of rules you have to play by them...

    Oh and to the both of you, the rest of the world doesn't "hate" america. If anything they "hate" the hypocritical policies of the government, but defiantly not the people as individuals. Governments all over the world are going to play the game of politics, but that has little to do with the people themselves. I'm sure that is what you meant in your post but it is a bad habit to get into...

    For instance I have a Russian friend, we were having lunch one day and I thought to my self how messed up the world is to think that if we were just a bit older, we would have been raised to hate each other just because of the nation we were born in...

  12. To 8:56 AM:

    Great analysis. Your critical thinking is dead on. If the trial does successfully illuminate the actions of the previous administration, it will simply be exposing more hypocrisy.

  13. These idiots are terrorist......PERIOD. The American government are the bigger idiots because that want to treat these animals like US citizens and give then RIGHTS. What RIGHTS did the 3000 plus people have when they were MURDERED? These worthless pieces of S**t should have been tried and convicted years ago according to the rules of war! Give me a break!

  14. am with FED UP, remark!!! Amen!!!!

  15. OK, my humble opinion to add...
    These guys are terrorists and their "rights" are just about non-existent in my book. This whole thing is going to be a mess.
    Afganistan needs to be addressed.... now. The generals went to obama more than 3 months ago now, and he comes back saying he wants more options - then heads off to Asia. I'm not saying that he needs to make a snap decision, but don't think that Al Queda doesn't notice that this man does not move on anything with speed or persistance. God help us all if we're faced with a crisis that will REQUIRE obama to make a fast decision.I don't think he can do it - he is weak.


Featured Posts

/* Track outbound links in Google Analytics */