The Ultimate Test of Obamas Hope Message

Yes, NYC seemed to be under siege. Many blocks were sealed off and sirens squealed incessantly.
Now they want a "show the world we are good guys trial". Again, streets around the Federal Court House will be blocked off, again garbage cans will be removed, mailboxes maybe too. For what?
The Taliban and AQ will be laughing as they turn on their Sony video cameras. "See how the Great Satan, fears us and how brave are the Martyrs". It is strike three against NYC (the first Trade Center bombing was the first, well BEFORE we were in I. or A.).

"Now they want a 'show the world we are good guys trial'."

That's what it seems to be, essentially. Clumsy and controversial, as well as provocative.

To what extent they were out of touch, again, and winging it, again, in doing this, who knows.

Now they want a "show the world we are good guys trial".

I'd settle for us, if not being "good guys" at least following our laws and the constitution.

Well if we do not wish to show the world that we are good guys maybe we should just embrace being the bad guys and stop whining when people call us such.

Justice is a messy process but the rule of law is an important thing. That we gave it away so swiftly was an act of cowardice but it will take much more than this to restore it. It is the right direction but we have a very long road back. This is not about apologies as no amount of them would fix the broken trust, this is about restoring who we as a nation wish to be. If you wish us to be the beacon of freedom liberty and justice you would be wise to support things like this otherwise the world will judge us with a proper amount of skepticism and mis-trust. This actually reminds me of WWII a good deal, not the obvious internment camps analogy but that the American left fought a war that it claimed to be good vs evil and the American right re-coiled and wanted nothing to do with at least the German half(they had no issue going after Japan after Pearl Harbor though do not get me wrong). The way we fought that war and the worlds reaction to us and our soldiers were used ever afterward though as reasons why we could invade anyone and "be greeted as liberators" most commonly by American Conservatives, those that fought hardest against getting involved in the first place. If conservatives want an effective propaganda tool to bludgeon the rest of the world with american liberal values are about the most effective one I have ever seen devised, unfortunately they find it too threatening themselves. This is not a new development, for historical precedent look to Adams VS Jefferson.

I think they do already. And, who are we trying to impress? The enemy? They will welcome the public trial. The rest of the world? Many of them may be looking at us genuflecting to the the left. That doesn't garner respect, just derision.
Finally, would you wish a trial in you neighborhood, instead of NYC?
Many of us in NYC don't need a reminder of 9/11, it was terrible.

I look at it differently, I think NYC is owed the right to try him there. If NYC does not want the trial there then move it elsewhere and they could have it where I live, but of course I walk to work so it would not really affect me much and would bring in lots of business. Seriously though if enough people in NYC want the trials elsewhere make some noise and make it happen but from my point of view it would have been disrespectful to have done otherwise. A court may wisely decide to relocate as well though.

How is justice(finally trying the man for the crimes for which he has been held against his will, deprived of his liberty and tortured, I am just saying he deserves a trial no more) "genuflecting to the left" do you not live in this nation of laws and wish to be treated in a lawful manner by this nation? Should we have different strains of justice because this time we are really really mad?? We are reaffirming what makes our culture worth defending. We are doing so in full knowledge that they would not afford us the same pity.

As far as having the trials whether or whether not in NYC doing this is what makes us worth living and dying for. Not doing this makes us animals and more than just our enemies will judge us as well since we will have a situational form of justice which in the end means no justice. Who we are trying to impress is ourselves, our children and all that come after. The children of other nations and lawful and honorable men that believe in justice and redemption. America can be all of the things that conservatives project onto it if they just allow for justice and this has been the case throughout history. From civil rights to upholding the rule of law in this situation. AQ does not welcome these trials. These are building into the turned over a new leaf meme in the ME right now that has hurt their recruitment over the last year. I cant think of a way they can turn this into a win, we are in effect going on about our lives. Or at least that is the symbology tied to it. As for the derision, yes from screaming heads and those that agree with them but what doesnt cause derision anymore? If Obama says it does it thinks about it or happens to be seen within 50 miles of it, whatever it is those same screaming heads will have a very negative and mildly paranoid way of painting it because it is of course how their making a living. Those that agree with them will agree with them and America will roll on but an America that not only advertises the rule of law but actually puts it on the line in the stickiest of situations.

A lot of words, but no meat. You see it differently, fine, you are still wrong. Unfortunately, Obama has let the wrong people influence him. I think this country is the greatest and I don't need a Circus of a trial in NYC or even in your back yard. It belongs in the Military Comm. with the other five guys. If I am a screaming head then you are Mary Poppins so don't create straw men you can poo poo.
Finally, I know you can not appreciate how NYC was in the period after the AM of 9/11, so I'm cutting you some slack. Even this is too long, I really wanted to give you a two word response.

Where is the straw man I said "and those that agree with them" if you agree with them then that means you. So I am wrong but you do not actually state what is "wrong." If you have trouble seeing the trial in NY then either fight where it is being held or move.
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security." - Franklin
I know its just words, just as Bush also noted that the constitution is just a piece of paper. The Magna Carta the constitution and many such documents are "just words" unless we follow them up with action which is what I said. My actual response to you does not include words but that seems to be how we now feel about one another, so be it. For you I assume I look like a doe eyed peacenik that just thinks hugging AQ operatives will resolve everything when I think nothing of the such. I assume that you are one of those that decided that trading off our ideals and freedoms for security was hunky dory and I consider those people cowards that I want to strangle before we live in a security state. In reality neither of us are likely anywhere near those cartoons but we now are much closer to believing that we are.

"If Obama says it does it thinks about it or happens to be seen within 50 miles of it, whatever it is those same screaming heads will have a very negative and mildly paranoid way of painting it because it is of course how their making a living. Those that agree with them will agree with them and America will roll on but an America that not only advertises the rule of law but actually puts it on the line in the stickiest of situations."
Oh, those "screaming heads." Those straw men.

I should have put those two groups in the same sentence not in separate ones I agree as it does get confusing. I intended it to mean not only those that agree with them but also those that agree with them only on this single issue since agreeing does not make you a fan of them either but I failed to realize that until reading it separated from the rest of the tirade. It was my way of saying those that disagree loudly are likely to do so regardless of the decision those who just disagree are a shifting group that will never reach zero. Either way a much nicer and intelligent argument was made by Steven G. Calabresi so I will let that speak for itself since I seem to not only be in a populist fire breathing mood today I am also having trouble being specific enough(honestly saying this I sparked an argument by not properly explaining the screamers and those that agree with them and then ran with said argument).

Steven G. Calabresi
Professor of law, Northwestern University :
"Obama has lived up to his oath of office by scheduling these trials before a life-tenured judge and jury.

Suppose some on the left called for John Yoo and all the interrogators at the CIA to be tried before a military commission with no life tenured judge or jury? They were, after all, officers in the war on terror assisting the Commander in Chief on a military mission. Why shouldn’t they get a court martial instead of a trial before a life-tenured judge and a jury?

The answer is that the Constitution’s separation of powers provides that, while Congress makes the law and the president executes it or enforces it, only the life-tenured Article III courts assisted by a jury can impose punishments. The constitutional way to punish the 9/11 terrorists is the same way we would use to punish military interrogators who violated the law against torture. No Article III court or jury – no constitutional power to punish. It is a simple question of the separation of powers – something I had thought conservatives believed in passionately.

But, the proponents of military commissions say that we have always allowed court martials of enlisted personnel who violated military discipline or law and those trials are held before non-life tenured judges. Court martials have even on occasion imposed the death penalty.

This point is true as far as it goes, but it only establishes a limited exception to Article III for the purpose of maintaining military discipline. No one thinks the trials of the 9/11 terrorists have anything to do with military discipline. They have to do with well deserved punishment. When our government wants and needs to punish it must go to court to accomplish that.

Won’t jurors be intimidated by the fear of terrorist retaliation and classified information compromised? The risk of juror intimidation is already present in organized crime and drug kingpin trials, and we have learned to deal with it there. As to classified information, the courts must and will take measures to safeguard it.

Let me be very clear. I do believe we are at war with the 9/11 terrorists and all those who aid and abet them. I do not think dealing with terrorism is a law enforcement issue only. I do think the Constitution does not allow our military to shoot prisoners it captures without a trial before a real judge and a jury. This ought not to be a very controversial proposition.

But, didn’t Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln punish those they were are war with by military commission? Yes, FDR did punish by military commission, and he also interned more than 100,000 Japanese Americans, he packed the Supreme Court, and his Securities and Exchange Commission terrorized Wall Street.

It is surprising, to put it mildly, that conservatives say as to military commissions that oh well FDR thought they were constitutional so they must be OK. I could give you a list of dozens of things off the top of my head that FDR did that were unconstitutional, and trial of captives by military commission is one of them. Well how about Abraham Lincoln’s use of military commissions? The response here is that jury trial of Confederates in the South or border States were impossible to hold because of the likelihood of juror nullification due to southern sympathies in the jury problem. This was a special difficulty unique to the Civil War, and it is not a problem in New York City today where the 9/11 terrorists will be tried.

Ok, Farmer, calling the big guns. I don't have a friendly prof. at the current time. So, a word count will
count as a Pyrrhic win for you at this point. But, please feel free to send donations to the Big Apple.
P.S., prof. many of us are NOT conservatives, and you are insulting me to call me one. I am a moderate/pragmatist, if any label is accurate these days.