I appreciate that we are still holding many others without trial. This is, I hope, a fist step and I give Obama credit for at least some movement in the right direction. He is still accountable for those being held without trial, a war crime in my estimation.

Why everybody picks on him, I can't imagine.

If there is a devil your last post spoke for him swanz and in case it is not clear you sicken me.

The schoolmarms are coming to get ya.

He was indicted in 1996 with plotting to blow up 11 or 12 American airliners flying from south-east Asia to the United States in January, 1995.

According to the transcripts released, the self-proclaimed head of al-Qaeda's military committee admitted to:

* The organisation, planning, follow-up and execution of the 9/11 operation
* Responsibility for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center in New York, the bombing of nightclubs in Bali in 2002 and a Kenyan hotel in the same year
* Responsibility for the failed attempt by the so-called shoe bomber, Richard Reid, to bring down an American plane
* Plots to attack Heathrow Airport, Canary Wharf and Big Ben in London, to hit targets in Israel, and to blow up the Panama Canal
* A plot to hit towers in the US cities of Los Angeles, Seattle, Chicago and the Empire State Building in New York, and to attack US nuclear power stations
* Plots to assassinate the late Pope John Paul II and former US President Bill Clinton

No, Ink, I don't think he should be held indefinitely without a trial. but I assure you, this is not the guy I'd want babysitting my grandchildren.

One thing I do know: "Evidence" obtained under torture is not admissible in court. So if their only evidence is what they got from him after waterboarding him 183 times, we (as law abiding US citizens) are fu@%ed.

Oops. I hate when that happens.

PS I am born and bred in NYC. There is a certain satisfaction that he will be tried there, downtown, and not in Okechobee.

I don't remember violence at this guys trial.. why would there be for the next trial??? I think we need to take a breath... and think logically.

It also makes it look as though NYC is full of vengeful people that need to see someone thrown to the lions.

I wonder whose brilliant idea this was?

And he made it pretty clear that they had plenty of evidence, obtained prior to all the water-boarding and what ever else went on, to convict these guys.

It may well be a media circus outside in the streets. I 'd bet the courtroom is closed to cameras, it doesn't take all that long, and they'll be convicted and sentenced.

If Iran sent agents into the USA and grabbed one of us and took us back to Iran to face charges of offenses against Islam and Iran for anything we posted here would that seem ok to us?

Is this your expert opinion or just another opportunity to try to spread your fear?

"Rudy says"? Since when is ‘Rudy" an expert in terrorism? He is nothing more than a former mayor who is trying to reenter the political arena. Perhaps this is what Rudy’s "terrorism expert’ and right hand man Bernie Kerik is advising? He certainly has lots of time on his hands while he is under house arrest until he goes to jail. The very same 'expert' that Bush and Rudy backed wholeheartedly to head Homeland Security.

Labrea, spot on about the Yosef trial. There is so much ka ka on these threads that one needs boots to wade through it.

If the past is any indicator, Rudy's primarily concerned about putting Rudy in the limelight.

Is he considering a run for governor?

LOL Nancy. There are 'rumors' he is eyeing the Governorship. Coincidence? I think not.

Well, there ya go. Lets not piss em off or they might hit us again.

They've won.

Holder has alot ahead of him. I like how he's done things so far in investigations and being independent.

They've won.

Thats it in a nutshell, Bill. Can't possibly carry on a trial like we have for the last 200 odd years because we're skeeered.

They can report Ink to the GW and they will discipline him.
He deserves a fair trial too.

Trials are the only way to get everything out in the open. BO et al can't find any other way to satisfy the far left's desire for a Bush trial other than to bring those terrorists to America, give them all the benefits as if they are American, and expose all the Bush admin did. It's all about being "transparent".

Well I got one for ya, BO... you want transparency? Let's see your school records. No? A court order says we can't? Well, how 'bout the transcripts of all those meetings you had with your good bud, Andy Stern? Huh? No one ever wrote anything down? Okay, then. Hey, how 'bout lettin' us see your blackberry. Wha'? We can't see that, either? It's personal? Oh, I get it. Transparency is only useful when it comes to tearing down this country during your apology tours. Transparency is only useful if CIA intelligence is blabbered all over our court system. Transparency is only useful when you make secret deals with big pharma. Oh wait... shhh... that's supposed to be a secret.

This admin is not only a joke, but a true 'O'bamination.

cait, do you ever have an independent thought? An original thought? Or do you just echo what you read and hear from wingnuts?

If you say so, cait.

I heard him say that, yelled at the TV, then went about my day. Didn't have time to listen to commentary till later that evening.

Or have you forgotten there's a time difference between America and Australia?

And I guess you also forgot that George Soros is a friend of this admin's White House and there's nothing he'd like more than to see the previous admin put on trial.

You're a pip.

Well, we expect better behavior and legal actions from our elected governments and leaders. We hold them to account in principle. If we don't, we condone the worst, the basest, actions in the interests of "national security" which comes to mean security of the criminals from prosecution and accountability.

Infidels Are Cool has been featured on the Roger Hedgecock show, a nationally syndicated radio host who typcailly fills in for RUSH LIMBAUGH. Listen to Roger recommend InfidelsAreCool.com

Garbage in, garbage out.

cgardell-- you might just be right. This fear of upsetting them by holding them accountable certainly illustrates it very clearly, though.

Nicoleta, let me ask you a question. The attack in '93-- when those terrorists were caught and tried (same organization), do you remember the retaliatory attacks that happened?

If it's Monday, it must be Melbourne.

Bill, I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking if I remember hearing about personal attacks against jurors?

If it were only that simple.

I'm giving up, again. CC is right.
"Is there any move that this administration or one of its representatives can make that won't be savaged by some?"

Ink, You gave my husband a good laugh this AM, when I shared your post with him. You might want to let Harvard Law School know they've got it all wrong.

From their site, linked below:
What were the Nuremberg Trials?

"They were a series of 13 trials of accused World War II German war criminals held from 1945 to 1949 in Nuremberg, Germany. The first trial, the International Military Tribunal (IMT), was prosecuted by the four Allied powers against the top leadership of the Nazi regime in 1945-1946. The other twelve trials were prosecuted by the United States in the Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMT) from 1946 to 1949, against a variety of governmental, military, industrial, and professional leaders."

" In order to ensure fair trial for the Defendants, the following procedure shall be followed:

"(a) The Indictment shall include full particulars specifying in detail the charges against the Defendants. A copy of the Indictment and of all the documents lodged with the Indictment, translated into a language which he understands, shall be furnished to the Defendant at reasonable time before the Trial.

(b) During any preliminary examination or trial of a Defendant he will have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charges made against him.

(c) A preliminary examination of a Defendant and his Trial shall be conducted in, or translated into, a language which the Defendant understands.

(d) A Defendant shall have the right to conduct his own defense before the Tribunal or to have the assistance of Counsel.

(e) A Defendant shall have the right through himself or through his Counsel to present evidence at the Trial in support of his defense, and to cross-examine any witness called by the Prosecution."

Now, you tell me. which President and which policy toward these Al Qaida guys failed? It was Bush, the same guy who was on vacation before 9/11 and who failed to warn airport security and the public about hi-jacking threats from the guys who already tried to take down the WTC . Bush failed us before and after 9/11. President Obama is simply trying to correct some of the grave mistakes of President George W Bush.

Exactly. To answer my own question, there were none.

MrsKjun, I disagree. The reason they came back at the twin towers wasn't because of the trial, but because they didn't succeed the first time. I think they would've tried again regardless.

Too bad that airport security people across the country were not notified of the hi-jacking threats from Bin Laden that reached a crescendo, and resulted in George Bush being warned in writing. The airport security people who detained some of the 9/11 hijackers when they lit up the metal detectors would have stopped them and the entire attack if they even had a security bulletin or any warning in hand.

You tried to pass off false information.

"I shall remember the unkindness in your unheard husbands laugh, if anyone needs an example of 'snide' you just provided it."

What? You didn't know people laugh at the stuff leftists believe?

"Exactly. To answer my own question, there were none."

Bill, I wish that were comforting to me. It isn't. I am not convinced that having no public reports of physical attacks translates to no attempts at jury tampering. Even assuming nothing happened last time, what's to stop them now?

Terrorists are being tried for acts of war against the United States. The very first consequence for that choice should be a guaranteed trial before a military tribunal. Terrorists want war, and tribunals come with the territory. Why should it be otherwise?

The American people want and deserve justification, not an edict. Let the administration justify making us into a target. Let our electeds vote to approve putting another bulls eye on the United States. Let's put responsibility back on all of our leaders where it belongs.

Does Holder not remember that they also hit the Pentagon? What's wrong with that venue? Hitting the Pentagon should place the trials under military jurisdiction.

What does this have to do with terrorists?