?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Clueless Orrin Hatch

I'm at the USO and had to walk away from the ramblings of Orrin Hatch. Apparently the 9/11 terrorists being tried in New York is because of "liberalism". If CONSERVATIVES were in charge, Mr Hatch alleges, they would be going to Guantanamo Bay where they could be put in front of a military tribunal!

Dear Mr. Hatch: If they're tried in New York, they can get the death penalty. A military tribunal can't do that.

This does not constitute an approval of the death penalty on my part. It's only an observation of the ongoing crackheadedness of Fox News and its preferred talking heads.

Comments

( 17 comments — Leave a comment )
jordan179
Jan. 29th, 2010 05:45 pm (UTC)
Yes, but the problem is that a civilian court will judge them on the assumption of an arrest by civilian standards; it will also not allow the same security of evidence. There is a good chance that civilian trials will either reveal vital secrets to the Terrorists, or -- worse -- let the perps walk.
kishiriadgr
Jan. 29th, 2010 07:56 pm (UTC)
The trials won't reveal anything that the terrorists don't already know. All of these guys' intel is a decade old, and this is a field where information is highly perishable.

I'm not sure how the "assumption of arrest" thing will spin, if at all. It's an unusual situation, where a crime was committed in the US by someone not there, then apprehended in a third country. If he were arrested in the US by police it'd be one thing, but he wasn't. This unusual situation is ALL the defense has, and that's not much in a case with such overwhelming evidence.

And as I said below, military tribunals have a lot less power than a federal court. It just sounds more frightening to say.

Again, if St. George W. Bush (let's all stop to kiss his photo) had proposed this, you'd be praising it because the death penalty is a possibility. I expect a conviction and death penalty in fact, and am selfishly glad I will be long gone from Afghanistan when it happens. But since it's Obama it's automatically a sign of weakness in your mind.
jordan179
Jan. 29th, 2010 10:52 pm (UTC)
I certainly hope the perps get death for their crime. Why do you believe that things will get worse in Afghanistan when this happens? Do you think that Al Qaeda has enough reserve strength to put on an attack and pretend that it's payback for the 9-11 plotters?
kishiriadgr
Jan. 30th, 2010 09:57 am (UTC)
Al-Qaeda aren't the big boys in town in Afghanistan anymore, but they do have fans who aren't affiliated.

After shows of strength against the bad guys in Afghanistan, bases get hit hard with bombs. There was massive frogginess the night Obama announced the surge.
jordan179
Jan. 30th, 2010 01:52 pm (UTC)
Well yes, but one has to assume that any offensive capability the foe has will eventually get used against friendlies. "Payback" is merely the excuse to expend some of that capability. If we tried to avoid offending the foe, he would still strike -- just less predictably.
kishiriadgr
Jan. 31st, 2010 05:11 am (UTC)
...I have no idea what you meant by the above statements. I'm trying to parse the sentences but they still don't make sense.
jordan179
Jan. 31st, 2010 03:42 pm (UTC)
That an enemy on the battlefield is going to, eventually, commit any resource that he has to the battle, and that the idea that he does so in "payback" for some particular war-related action of your own side (such as executing captured war criminals) is false -- though he may want to encourage this false idea in order to intimidate your own side into refraining from that action. In other words, if he launched some particular offensive and said it was revenge for the execution of the terrorists, it is an offensive that he would have launched anyway, at some point, whether the terrorists were executed or not? See?
kishiriadgr
Feb. 2nd, 2010 10:01 am (UTC)
You have no idea what the reality is. When Obama announced 30,000 more troops, that night we were hit hard. As in close enough that the ground under my feet shook. So blow hard and theorize as much as you want; I'm seeing it for real.
jordan179
Feb. 20th, 2010 08:12 pm (UTC)
Unless you are trying to argue that, barring the American "provocation" of reinforcing their troops, the enemy would never have expended the resources they expended in that attack in any attack on America or her allies, nothing you have said contradicts anything that I have said, and hence I must asssume that you have misunderstood my point.
kishiriadgr
Mar. 5th, 2010 05:27 am (UTC)
At this point I've completely missed out on what it is you're trying to say. They would likely use the armaments sure, but they didn't have to attack us then, they chose to.
jordan179
Mar. 5th, 2010 07:37 pm (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly my point. They were not "provoked" to attack by the deployment of reinforcements, they would have attacked anyway -- at a slightly-different time. Not deploying the reinforcements would not have prevented the attacks.
rockahulababy
Jan. 30th, 2010 05:48 am (UTC)
There is a good chance that civilian trials will either reveal vital secrets to the Terrorists

Like what? Do you honestly believe that their trial absolutely cannot be prosecuted without the revealing of state secrets? Are you serious? Do you have any clue how classification and dissemination of classified information even works?
wombat_socho
Jan. 29th, 2010 06:37 pm (UTC)
I don't get it. Why can't a military tribunal determine that these losers are illegal combatants under the Geneva Conventions and have them shot? (NB: I didn't see the Hatch interview you're talking about as I seldom watch TV.)
kishiriadgr
Jan. 29th, 2010 07:48 pm (UTC)
They don't have that power. Fullstop. I am prohibited from saying more.
wombat_socho
Jan. 30th, 2010 01:29 am (UTC)
Okay. I shan't push, not wanting to get you in trouble with TPTB.
fitfool
Jan. 31st, 2010 12:23 am (UTC)
huh. I hadn't realized that. I thought the appeal of going with a military tribunal was so they could be convicted quickly and hauled out and shot without a long, drawn-out appeals process.
kishiriadgr
Jan. 31st, 2010 05:10 am (UTC)
Nope not even close. You can read non-classified material on it off the Red Cross or Human Rights Now. Be aware that they are a little creative in reporting conditions.
( 17 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

San Diego
kishiriadgr
This is it, the Apocalypse
My Amazon Wish List

Latest Month

June 2016
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com