[kenberg]

jtfanclub, on Aug 8 2008, 08:07 PM, said:

kenberg, on Aug 8 2008, 01:08 PM, said:

Obviously this is a lesser fish, and that can be dealt with by imposing a lesser sentence. Why exactly is this wrong?

Because we spent millions of dollars and five years of work for nothing. If he'd been found not guilty, it still would have been December until we released him. He simply wasn't worth prosecuting.

I don't see it as nothing.

The government wanted a huge sentence, preferably life imprisonment. He was given five and a half years. This could well stimulate, and perhaps has stimulated, exactly the discussion that I think is very much needed. What constitutes a crime here? One could argue, perhaps with some logic, that the actions he performed are no crime at all. Mike so argues in his post. One could argue, as the government did, that his actions are very serious. I imagine there will be some debates about this, and I regard that as a very good thing. People will disagree here.

[Al_U_Card]

kenberg, on Aug 8 2008, 10:14 PM, said:

I don't see it as nothing.

The government wanted a huge sentence, preferably life imprisonment. He was given five and a half years.

Where are they to be incarcerated?

Who will care for them?

Who will pay for that care?

Who will receive payment?.....The Carlyle Group (Bin Laden and Bush crime families) ??

The largest "growth" industry in the US in the past five years has been prison/incarceration services. The graft that keeps on giving....

[Winstonm]

Quote

You address no misconceptions whatsoever

.
See below - a successful trial?

Quote

You address: This is a lesser fish. This is not a misconception.

Agreed.

Quote

You address: It can be dealt with by a lesser sentence. Not a misconception either.

Yes, but not via this military "show" trial that makes a mockery of justice.

Quote

You address: I don't think I want my money back. I am better qualified than you to say whether or not I want my money back. You are qualified to say if you want your money back.

Agree

Quote

You address my assertion: We can argue about whether his actions should be a crime. I believe we can, and should, argue about that. I have no misconception here. I regard it as important to decide what constitutes a crime in this area.

Agree

Quote

You disagree with my views, that's fine. To call my views misconceptions is rhetoric rather than logic, to say you are addressing any misconceptions that I have is false. Disagreeing with you is not the same as having misconceptions. Not at all.

Ken, this is the statement with which I strongly disagree:

Quote

I see it as a trial successfully concluded.

I do not view such kangaroo trials as successful. I don't think a discussion of any of the other points is relevant when these "military tribunals" and coerced confessions are accepted as "justice".

Quote

A former chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, Col. Morris Davis, highlighted the rigged nature of the process when he testified that senior Pentagon officials made clear to him that only guilty verdicts would be acceptable and that some high-profile convictions were needed to boost Republican electoral prospects.

[1eyedjack]

PassedOut, on Aug 8 2008, 04:01 AM, said:

And the verdict is in: Guilty: 5 months left in sentence

Quote

GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba — Rejecting a prosecution request for a severe sentence, a panel of military officers sentenced the convicted former driver for Osama bin Laden to five and a half years in prison on Thursday. The sentence means that the first detainee convicted after a war crimes trial here could complete his punishment by the end of this year.

The military judge, Capt. Keith J. Allred of the Navy, had already said that he planned to give the driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, credit for at least the 61 months he has been held since being charged, out of more than six years in all. That would bring Mr. Hamdan to the end of his criminal sentence in five months.

NEXT?

Did he get any remission for good behaviour?

[kenberg]

Winston, my calling it a successful trial does, no doubt, gloss over surrounding issues. To put it mildly, you may well say.

Some thoughts, not fitting into a complete picture.

The US, myself included, tend to ignore problems until they are thrust in our faces. Examples abound, but the issue here is terrorism and what to do about it. We were no more prepared for 9/11 than we were for Pearl Harbor. I think the starting place might well be "I'm not sure what the hell we should do".

Let's consider this guy. It is often mentioned that his education is minimal. So was my father's. At 12 my father was an immigrant and an orphan. He did not grow up to take a job driving for Al Capone. This "Gee, I didn't know nothing and was shocked, just shocked, to find that Uncle Osama was a terrorist" is a bit much. You lie down with dogs you wake up with fleas, maybe the five and a half year itch.

Still, giving him his day in court, such as it was, so late in the day is not cool. It has at least crossed my mind, and no doubt many minds, that the length of the sentence was chosen so that it would be slightly longer than time served.

So RAND thinks that it should be treated like a criminal matter? Then the guy gets life. Or death. Nobody involved in Oklahoma City got off with five and a half years as far as I know.

When Bush gave his first speech after 9/11, my suggestion was that he begin "The Great Satan is really pissed." But that is only one reason I am not president.

As you can see, I have conflicting thoughts. I have mentioned this before. I value proper respect for the role of law, I do. But the sons of bitches are trying to kill us. I don't favor letting them.

Last suggestion: I hope, but don't hold your breath, that each of our presidential candidates will address the issue of whether they believe the trial was fair and the sentence appropriate. They will probably do this right after they give a full accounting of their thoughts on social security.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I think the starting place might well be "I'm not sure what the hell we should do".

Ken,

I think this is a reasonable starting point.

Quote

As you can see, I have conflicting thoughts. I have mentioned this before. I value proper respect for the role of law, I do. But the sons of bitches are trying to kill us. I don't favor letting them.

I certainly understand and can empathize with these feelings; however, my take is that there can not be an excuse to ignore the rule of law - else we are no different that those we oppose; and lastly, the terrorists are a vast minority - granting them "warrior" status by holding a "war on terror" aids their cause. It is much better to treat them as what they are - criminal scumbags.

[mike777]

[quote name='Winstonm' date='Aug 8 2008, 06:56 PM'] [u]RAND deduced that the best way to kill a terrorist group is to capture or kill its leaders[/u].






This task is [u]best carried out, according to the study, by law enforcement, intelligence, and, if needed, troops from the local country[/u]. Instead of giving terrorists the exalted status of warriors, they should be deemed criminals. In other words, the authors conclude that in most past cases in which terrorist groups have been defeated by getting their leaders, local law enforcement did the job. They say that when troops are needed, local troops have a better understanding of the culture and terrain and thus have more legitimacy than do U.S. forces. In fact, the study says that the presence of U.S. forces on Muslim soil can create more terrorists to fight; thus the authors argue that the U.S. military should confine itself to training the locals.

It is nice when government-paid researchers can provide empirical data to confirm what should have been obvious to any informed citizen years ago! After a major terrorist crime, such as the one on 9/11, the objective should be to get the perpetrators. The U.S. government should not militarily invade countries and try to change their form of government, economic system or money-making activities (for example, growing opium). This applies to both Afghanistan and Iraq. [/QUOTE]

I've been saying this all along and now that RAND agrees I rest my case. [/QUOTE]
"u]RAND deduced that the best way to kill a terrorist group is to capture or kill its leaders[/u]."


Winston in this quote RAnd says it wants to 1) kill a terrorist group,2) capture or kill its leaders......


But this is just what the world is screaming at us about.

Note you quote them saying nothing about gathering evidence in some legal way and giving them a trial. You quote nothing about due process or chain of evidence or ever bringing them into a court.

"In other words, the authors conclude that in most past cases in which terrorist groups have been defeated by getting their leaders, local law enforcement did the job. They say that when troops are needed, local troops have a better understanding of the culture and terrain and thus have more legitimacy than do U.S. forces. In fact, the study says that the presence of U.S. "


In fact we do try and do this, what more does Rand want us to do?

[Winstonm]

Quote

Winston in this quote RAnd says it wants to 1) kill a terrorist group,2) capture or kill its leaders

Mike, as usual your post neglects critical words in order to make something appear real that is not so.

The actual quote:

Quote

RAND deduced that the best way to kill a terrorist group is to capture or kill its leaders.

In this sense, the interpretation for most would be that "to kill a terrorist group" would mean "taking the life from" or "destroying" a terrorist group and not the mass homicide of every single human in the group.

And this is done by capturing or killing its leaders.

Capturing its leaders in order to destroy a terrorist group is a far cry from the blood lust you cite....

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Aug 9 2008, 12:48 PM, said:

Quote

Winston in this quote RAnd says it wants to 1) kill a terrorist group,2) capture or kill its leaders

Mike, as usual your post neglects critical words in order to make something appear real that is not so.

The actual quote:

Quote

RAND deduced that the best way to kill a terrorist group is to capture or kill its leaders.

In this sense, the interpretation for most would be that "to kill a terrorist group" would mean "taking the life from" or "destroying" a terrorist group and not the mass homicide of every single human in the group.

And this is done by capturing or killing its leaders.

Capturing its leaders in order to destroy a terrorist group is a far cry from the blood lust you cite....

No one used the word blood lust but you..no one talks about mass homicide of every single group member but you..why do you keep making this stuff up..

Just have a civil conversation..



Winston as usual you seem to miss the main and really only point I made sigh pls read my posts in full. In fact you seem to ingnore it in full and make up your own strawman of a post.

I copied your quote and repeated it accurately.

"RAND deduced that the best way to kill a terrorist group is to capture or kill its leaders."

Rand used the word kill twice, not me.

I will repeat my point since you do not address it at all. Your Rand quote says nothing about or even if they will have a trial. It said nothing about how to gather legal evidence or if they will even bother. It only says capture or kill.......the leaders and....kill the group.....

Assuming they do have trials I am concerned, gravely concerned they will be nothing more than show trials just as Mother Russia used to have...Guilty...now lets have the trail....



No one is stopping local law enforcement from going after terrorists. No one is stopping Pakistan or Afghan police from capturing Laden. In fact everyone is for this, are not you?

No one is claiming that foreign soldiers know the culture or terrain better, no one is claiming that having foreign soldiers invade your country will not cause or increase anger.....everyone agrees with this.....


"They say that when troops are needed, local troops have a better understanding of the culture and terrain and thus have more legitimacy than do U.S. forces. In fact, the study says that the presence of U.S. forces on Muslim soil can create more terrorists to fight; thus the authors argue that the U.S. military should confine itself to training the locals".

[Winstonm]

Quote

Note you quote them saying nothing about gathering evidence in some legal way and giving them a trial. You quote nothing about due process or chain of evidence or ever bringing them into a court.

How can someone quote "nothing being said"?

However, this was quoted:

Quote

The report concluded that the administration's war on terrorism has not significantly degraded al-Qaeda and that the group has morphed into a more formidable enemy. In fact, al-Qaeda has perpetrated more attacks after September 11, 2001 than before it.

RAND deduced that the best way to kill a terrorist group is to capture or kill its leaders.

So if you want to believe in the necessity for a "war on terror", at least use techniques that have a history of having worked instead of listening to the Bush/Cheney crowd:

Quote

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American)/

[mike777]

Again you fail to read my full post, in fact it seems you cannot even quote it.


I said we are already doing this to a great degree. So far all you point out is your irrational anger and hatred of Bush.

1) Local police are tracking terror suspects in the UK, Ireland, Italy, Germany, Spain, Mexico, Phillipines, Indonesia, Afganistan, Pakistan, India, China etc etc......no one is against this.

2) The Rand study says nothing about trials and you do not find this disturbing? They only want to capture or kill or destroy or train soldiers/local police to capture , kill or destroy? That is the Rand plan?

"How can someone quote "nothing being said"?"

3) NATO and the USA train troops in many many countries, again no one disagrees with these Rand points.

"So if you want to believe in the necessity for a "war on terror", at least use techniques that have a history of having worked instead of listening to the Bush/Cheney crowd:"




4) If you are changing the subject now and saying you do not believe we are at war, or in this whole "war on terror" theme or we should not invade or stay in Afganistan is fiction made up by evil Bush/Cheney fair enough, but you present no logic to back this up. You have not quoted anything from the Rand report that comes to the conclusion we should never have invaded Afganistan or stay there. I am not advocating for or against it only that the Rand report seems to make simplistic statements, points one and three, that everyone agrees with.

6) I only note McCain, Obama, and Nato seems to think there is a real war or claim there is and advocate more soldiers, guns and violence. If you disagree with McCain and Obama and the NATO countries and you seem to, fair enough.....but disagreeing is not logic showing you are right.

7) If your point is to just rant againt the evil Bush/Cheney and claim they are against point one and point three when in fact the are for them and you are the only one bringing them up... I will end.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Again you fail to read my full post, in fact it seems you cannot even quote it

I also try to avoid quoting Dick Addington...a habit of mine I'm trying to encourage.

Quote

I will end.

The best plan thus far espoused by either side.