The "almost" Times Square Bomb

first, what is the difference between trying them as criminals, or enemy combatants? isn't the end result the same? i know one is tried in civilian court. and the other in military court. is that the only difference?

There is a big difference between criminal and enemy combatant. A criminal is allowed a trial by jury, complete with a competent lawyer, and the evidential standards are high. Military tribunals, on the other hand, do not contain a real jury, can be held without representation for the defense, and standards of evidence are ridiculously low. Criminal trials attempt to deliver real justice; military tribunals are essentially kangaroo courts.

I really tried my best just to read through the posts and move on, but I just want to say a few things and let it be.

Firstdown, a few of your assertions are just flat out off base. One of the chief criticisms of President Obama's foreign policy is that it's not a radical departure from Georg Bush. In fact, except for some changes to the interrogation techniques and the personnel actually conducting the interrogation, most people on the right, and I've said this before, have no problem with how he's executing the war on terror and more broadly his foreign policy.

As far as the usage of the word enemy combatants v. the word terrorist v. criminal, I don't know. He called this last guy a terrorist for what it's worth. But these guys aren't stopping because we choose to use one word vs the other, and I'm 100% certain they don't give a shit whether a Democrat or Republican is in the White House. We tend to cast these aspersions and question who's more patriotic and who's tougher on war, but terrorists just want to inflict massive damage and kill tens of thousands, if not millions of innocent Americans. So can we put to rest this argument that Obama is not tough (contrary to tons of evidence) and his predecessor was a bad ass. The fact that we've had something like 3 prosecutions in military tribunals vs. nearly 300 in a civilian courts should be an indication of how tough it is to get an actual conviction in military court. So again, the issue isn't whether we call them enemy combatants or terrorists or anything else, but where are we most likely to get a conviction. And regardless of your politics, our civilian courts have been overwhelmingly successful at putting these bastards away for life!

Buster, a simple question - What is Obama doing different from Bush or any other president in terms of giving rights when and where needed to terrorists according to the rule of law? As far as this recent incident, how do you suppose we get around the Constitution and try an American citizen as a terrorist and not read him his rights where there's no precedent for it?

Did we ever close the Gitmo detention camps? I know we did move a lot out, but don't remember any finality.

It's not closed yet, but there's a good chance most of them get re-located to a facility in Illinois that's operating well below capacity.

It's not closed yet, but there's a good chance most of them get re-located to a facility in Illinois that's operating well below capacity.

I think they'd rather stay in Gitmo!



Man that's a snarky line, better used on Ohio or Montana.

I think they'd rather stay in Gitmo!



Man that's a snarky line, better used on Ohio or Montana.


Yeah, it's a shame we spent all that coin on that facility and will shut it down. I'm all for the reasons, but what a waste.

I really tried my best just to read through the posts and move on, but I just want to say a few things and let it be.

Firstdown, a few of your assertions are just flat out off base. One of the chief criticisms of President Obama's foreign policy is that it's not a radical departure from Georg Bush. In fact, except for some changes to the interrogation techniques and the personnel actually conducting the interrogation, most people on the right, and I've said this before, have no problem with how he's executing the war on terror and more broadly his foreign policy.

As far as the usage of the word enemy combatants v. the word terrorist v. criminal, I don't know. He called this last guy a terrorist for what it's worth. But these guys aren't stopping because we choose to use one word vs the other, and I'm 100% certain they don't give a shit whether a Democrat or Republican is in the White House. We tend to cast these aspersions and question who's more patriotic and who's tougher on war, but terrorists just want to inflict massive damage and kill tens of thousands, if not millions of innocent Americans. So can we put to rest this argument that Obama is not tough (contrary to tons of evidence) and his predecessor was a bad ass. The fact that we've had something like 3 prosecutions in military tribunals vs. nearly 300 in a civilian courts should be an indication of how tough it is to get an actual conviction in military court. So again, the issue isn't whether we call them enemy combatants or terrorists or anything else, but where are we most likely to get a conviction. And regardless of your politics, our civilian courts have been overwhelmingly successful at putting these bastards away for life!

Buster, a simple question - What is Obama doing different from Bush or any other president in terms of giving rights when and where needed to terrorists according to the rule of law? As far as this recent incident, how do you suppose we get around the Constitution and try an American citizen as a terrorist and not read him his rights where there's no precedent for it?


good post, thanks.

even "liberals" like Glenn Greenwald constantly hammer obama with criticism on the fact that he is just like Bush as far as not giving due process/fair trials to these guys.

I really tried my best just to read through the posts and move on, but I just want to say a few things and let it be.

Firstdown, a few of your assertions are just flat out off base. One of the chief criticisms of President Obama's foreign policy is that it's not a radical departure from Georg Bush. In fact, except for some changes to the interrogation techniques and the personnel actually conducting the interrogation, most people on the right, and I've said this before, have no problem with how he's executing the war on terror and more broadly his foreign policy.

As far as the usage of the word enemy combatants v. the word terrorist v. criminal, I don't know. He called this last guy a terrorist for what it's worth. But these guys aren't stopping because we choose to use one word vs the other, and I'm 100% certain they don't give a shit whether a Democrat or Republican is in the White House. We tend to cast these aspersions and question who's more patriotic and who's tougher on war, but terrorists just want to inflict massive damage and kill tens of thousands, if not millions of innocent Americans. So can we put to rest this argument that Obama is not tough (contrary to tons of evidence) and his predecessor was a bad ass. The fact that we've had something like 3 prosecutions in military tribunals vs. nearly 300 in a civilian courts should be an indication of how tough it is to get an actual conviction in military court. So again, the issue isn't whether we call them enemy combatants or terrorists or anything else, but where are we most likely to get a conviction. And regardless of your politics, our civilian courts have been overwhelmingly successful at putting these bastards away for life!

Buster, a simple question - What is Obama doing different from Bush or any other president in terms of giving rights when and where needed to terrorists according to the rule of law? As far as this recent incident, how do you suppose we get around the Constitution and try an American citizen as a terrorist and not read him his rights where there's no precedent for it?

It's disgusting to hear senators and congressmen say we shouldn't mirandize a US Citizen and even worse revoke their citizenship before they're convicted. It is as if the Constitution isn't good enough for them or marginally good enough when it suites them.

first, what is the difference between trying them as criminals, or enemy combatants? isn't the end result the same? i know one is tried in civilian court. and the other in military court. is that the only difference?
Civilian court has totaly different rules then military court. For one a military court uses people that know law to determine if your guilty and a civilian court well uses civillians. Civilians also givees them more rights to procedures like getting read your rights which alot of these guys in gitmo did not have their rights read to them. Like I said I suport Obama in convecting this guy here because he is an American and he was in the US at the time.

There is a big difference between criminal and enemy combatant. A criminal is allowed a trial by jury, complete with a competent lawyer, and the evidential standards are high. Military tribunals, on the other hand, do not contain a real jury, can be held without representation for the defense, and standards of evidence are ridiculously low. Criminal trials attempt to deliver real justice; military tribunals are essentially kangaroo courts.

I guess you have not sat in a court room in some years. Lady places hot coffee in lap gets burn and wins millions. Guy climbs up shelving in store and win millions. Etc....

I really tried my best just to read through the posts and move on, but I just want to say a few things and let it be.

Firstdown, a few of your assertions are just flat out off base. One of the chief criticisms of President Obama's foreign policy is that it's not a radical departure from Georg Bush. In fact, except for some changes to the interrogation techniques and the personnel actually conducting the interrogation, most people on the right, and I've said this before, have no problem with how he's executing the war on terror and more broadly his foreign policy.

As far as the usage of the word enemy combatants v. the word terrorist v. criminal, I don't know. He called this last guy a terrorist for what it's worth. But these guys aren't stopping because we choose to use one word vs the other, and I'm 100% certain they don't give a shit whether a Democrat or Republican is in the White House. We tend to cast these aspersions and question who's more patriotic and who's tougher on war, but terrorists just want to inflict massive damage and kill tens of thousands, if not millions of innocent Americans. So can we put to rest this argument that Obama is not tough (contrary to tons of evidence) and his predecessor was a bad ass. The fact that we've had something like 3 prosecutions in military tribunals vs. nearly 300 in a civilian courts should be an indication of how tough it is to get an actual conviction in military court. So again, the issue isn't whether we call them enemy combatants or terrorists or anything else, but where are we most likely to get a conviction. And regardless of your politics, our civilian courts have been overwhelmingly successful at putting these bastards away for life!

Buster, a simple question - What is Obama doing different from Bush or any other president in terms of giving rights when and where needed to terrorists according to the rule of law? As far as this recent incident, how do you suppose we get around the Constitution and try an American citizen as a terrorist and not read him his rights where there's no precedent for it?
That number of 300 if I'm correct is over years and has nothing to do with Obama.