We are at war. We are at war with militant Islam. Not all Muslims, not all of Islam, just those who choose radicalism over moderation. Just those who choose to kill over those who seek peace.
I've heard some folks lately try and make the case that we are not at war because Congress has never "declared" war. No where in the Constitution does it say exactly how Congress is to do that or what words they should use. All it says under Section 8 of Article I is that the Congress has the power "to declare war". That's it. No recommended verbiage, no procedure, nothing. It doesn't say whether it is to do so formally or informally.
People have tried to argue that the war in Iraq is illegal because Congress never "declared" war. The plain fact of the matter is that the Congress has tacitly declared war in both cases. By agreeing to fund the operations, Congress gives it's implicit declaration.
Despite that obvious truth, we are going to try enemy combatants in a United States Federal Court with all the protections and representation that we offer citizens who break the law. It's ludicrous, but that is how this administration sees the problem. To them, it's not a military problem, it's a criminal problem.
Five of the people we are at war with will be on trial. It will be a circus and the defense has signaled they intend to make it a circus.
A lawyer for one of five men facing trial for the Sept. 11 attacks says the men plan to plead not guilty and use the trial to express their political views.
As you read down the article further, you see where their intent is tio essentially put US foreign policy on trial.
First of all, I will be wholly surprised if the judge doesn't dismiss the whole thing before it even gets that far. I'm sure that such things as "enhanced interrogation" will be much discussed and decided upo.
Many folks have taken the position that this is just one way they can put the Bush administration on trial. It's a possibility. There's no real good reason to do this and Holder couldn't give one when pressured in Congressional hearings. The current administration does not seem to be concerned with the possibility that classified information may fall in to the wrong hands as it did during the first WTC bombing trials so this could just be their way of taking a shot at Bush. The problem is that in trying to keep Bush Hatred alive, they will weaken the President's ability to keep us safe. It will not just weaken Obama's own Presidency, it could potentially hamstring future Presidents as well.
It's just another sign that this administration is run by amateurs and another reason this asshat should never been elected to be President.
VW
Then again, one could reasonably view this as a criminal problem - the criminal problem within the current administration and within the ranks of the hardcore liberal Democrats who are willing to do anything to further their anti-constitutional, hence, criminal agenda.
Asshat...I love that one. Have to keep that one handy. Asshat: From the slang expression "Having one's head up one's ass," thus, wearing the ass as a hat. It just gives even more meaning...(laughing my ass off)...to the jackass being used as a political symbol by the Democratic party.
Posted by: John Hampton | Sunday, November 22, 2009 at 16:47
Democ.rats should all be made to re-apply for Citizenship ...
Posted by: g6loq | Sunday, November 22, 2009 at 18:11
I wonder when folks will finally abandon the "Bush Hatred" train. I find it laughable that people would try to use these criminal proceedings as a way to "try" the Bush administration. Sheesh. I guess that this kind of thing eventually goes away (who still rails against Carter, or Hoover?), but the fact that it's a slow fade-away does nothing to make me feel any better. Memo to the Justice Dept.: the Bush administration is GONE. It's YOUR SHOW now. If there are crimes you want to accuse of President Bush, well, I guess you can go for it. This ain't it, though. Rather than dwell on the past, can we please get something worthwhile done for our future?
Posted by: Scott | Monday, November 23, 2009 at 07:27
Wooo, that was lousy. I was still coming off the drugs when I banged that out. In any case, you are exactly right Scot. If there are specifics, then by all means, do what must be done. But this trial by proxy is ludicrous.
After this last Asian tour, it's increasingly obvious that this man is not prepared to be President.
VW
Posted by: Violence Worker | Monday, November 23, 2009 at 11:17
Circus indeed. You might want to check this and check this as well.
BZ
Posted by: Bloviating Zeppelin | Monday, November 23, 2009 at 13:22
And we are stuck with this moron for 3 more years. Better stock up on ammo it is going to be a rough ride
Posted by: series60 | Monday, November 23, 2009 at 22:24
And there's nothing funny about that.
Posted by: John Hampton | Tuesday, November 24, 2009 at 05:48
You know what I think? "I think it shows you put terrorism on one side, you put our legal system on the other, and our legal system comes out ahead." Oh, wait, that's not what I think, that's what Rudy Guliani thinks. At least that's what he said in 1993 when we tried the blind sheik for the WTC bombing in a civil court. In his city no less.
You know what else I think? It shows that we can give people a fair trial, that we are exactly what we say we are. Oh, wait, that was Rudy again, not me. Of course that was way back in 2006 when we tried the 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui in a civil court. Of course we had that other democ.rat stalinist president running the country then. Moron see, moron do, I guess.
Posted by: Rusty | Tuesday, November 24, 2009 at 10:58
Rusty, even you aren't that moronic. The afore mentioned by you were captured on American soil and all done prior to 9/11. The circumstances were a lot different and I believe they were residents. Makes a big difference, but I don't expect you to understand that.
VW
Posted by: Violence Worker | Tuesday, November 24, 2009 at 11:06