>Okay, then we agree more than not. i don't believe this should take place in a federal court for exactly the same reasons you state - that if it is not to be a true fair trial it is a travesty.
>
>That said, a military tribunal would not be a "kangaroo court" and would be perfectly legal. I would just like to see the opponent left with the least room to game our system and turn a strength into a vulnerability. You still have not addressed my scenario of how I would exploit this if I were strategizing for the other side. I think that is a very real danger (not that I will change sides <s> but that somebody who has less than our best interests at heart understands us well enough to figure this out. )

A military tribunal would also be out of the public eye. How could you know it wasn't a kangaroo court? Why would anyone ask that question about assuring a guilty verdict if they thought a military tribunal would be as fair and honest as a civil court? And that from a republican too.

As far as your scenario is concerned, you mean the fanatics would suddenly start using 'peaceful means'? Unlikely. If they don't get to kill anyone or become a martyr, then there really isn't much in it for them. Besides, why couldn't you suppose the same scenario to debilitate the military - presuming the military won't simply start shooting people if things start to become too crowded.

>
>
>
>>Ah, you make the mistake that a lot of people make when I talk about the 'Moral high ground". I'm not talking about being Neville Chamberlain and placating the enemy at all costs. I'm talking about living up to your own legal systems and constitution and the culture that supposedly made the U.S. a great nation. When you start talking about ignoring your own principals, such as ignoring the courts in favour of a kangaroo court, or in insuring a guilty verdict because you're afraid the accused might prove to be innocent, then you have lost the right to tout yourselves as a nation of laws and ethics. That's when you have lost the moral high ground, and if the government refuses to acknowledge it's own constitution and laws, why should its citizens bother to do so?
>>
>>How can any government be trusted by anyone (its own citizens or its allies) if it refuses to live by its own ideals?
>>
>>>Again, you are assuming the actual actions - not posturing - of foreign governments - friend or foe - has something to do with our behaving toward our enemies in a way the gives us the "moral highground" .
>>>
>>>Nations act in their own self interest, not as the result of how "nice" somebody is. I'm not talking about public opinion, or the opinion of the "intelligensia". The people who take this seriously in the US, Canada, UK, France, Germany are very very clear about what the threat is and their actions in concert with each other is based on common interest. During all the "freedom fries" silliness, French intelligence was a staunch ally. When polls in UK said most young people wouldn't fight for Great Britain, let alone the US, British intelligence and law enforcement was very much on the same page as we were. Canada faces exactly the same threats we do, you are just currently not drawing focus. But unless your immigration policies have changed dramatically from the last time I checked, your law enforcement people are losing sleep over your vulnerability.
>>>
>>>It is not just our fight. Europe is in much more imminent danger. And awareness is increasing. Can you imagine banning the hijab in American or Canadian schools?
>>>
>>>My point is that this asymmetric war makes the whole issue of "moral high-ground" - and its worst concomitant, the pathetic need of the chattering class to be thought well of - a vulnerability that is being exploited and will be exploited much much further in the next decade as it is seen to yield best results.
>>>
>>>Britain's misplaced guilt over empire and the pathetic insecurity of a class of intellectuals has created a situation where every idea of human rights that was part of its great gift to humanity is being exploited as a weapon to destroy that very civilization. The mad mullahs of Finsbury Park can only exist in a society that fears offending.
>>>
>>>Game it out. Play black.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Of course there is no concept of moral highground from the point of view of 'the faithful', but there is in the point of view of most civilised nations. If the U.S. wishes to go it alone in every battle they fight from now on, then losing the 'moral highground' is not a bad way to go about it. Some day, when the U.S. again asks their allies to join them in some or other 'righteous' war, they'd better have a better definition of 'righteous' than "because we're the U.S.". On the other hand, if the U.S. is happy overextending their military and spending trillions to fight wars alone because they've lost the moral trust of their allies, then ok, like I said, go for it.
>>>>
>>>>>I thnk the concept of a "moral highground" based on whether or not we give prisoners American legal rights is so laughable outside our own culture that it is another example of something I would work on if I were strategizing for the other side. There is no chance of a "moral highground" from their point of view if you are not of The Faithful - and their brand of Faithful at that. Telling the rest of the world - or at least the Somalias, Yemens, Irans etc what to do relies much more on military might than moral highground. Look at Obama. Everyone loves him. Everyone smiles at him. Everyone ignores him. He is exactly the American President those who have a vested interesting in America not projecting power want.
>>>>>
>>>>>And exactly what room would we be laughed out of - the UN? I can live with that. I am much more concerned about the scenario I have outlined where anyone with a sophisticated understanding of our culture can bring us to our knees by manipulating our fear that others might not like us.
>>>>>
>>>>>Israel has survived because of Golda Meier's dictum "Israel will not commit suicide so the world will think well of her."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>No question that how America behaves in this regards affects how the Saudies or Yemenis or anyone else behaves, but what it does affect is America's ability to take the moral high ground. As long as that is something that the U.S. is willing to waive (which I doubt) then go for it. On the other hand, the U.S. does love to tell the rest of the world how to behave, and this sort of activity can seriously get you laughed out of the room when you do ('You' meaning the U.S., not Charles Hankey).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I take your point, but I don't think a Yemeni or Saudi who is not part of any army in the Geneva convention sense, out of uniform in Afghanistan is a protected class of any kind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And I don't think whatever we do with such people will effect one whit the treatment of Americans in similar circumstances. Having been in bad places "out of uniform" I can tell you the Geneva Convention was never even considered as any kind of "protection". Dealing with the Soviets there was an understanding that pieces would be traded but dealing with those seeking martyrdom you don't have a lot of bargaining leverage. The "suffering" of their brothers in captivity is only relevant in how that suffering makes *us* feel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It is important to understand that in this type of asymetric conflict our behavior in no way effects the behavior of the other side except in that it points out a vulnerability - the Holder judicial approach and the failure to red-flag Hasan for fear of hurting someone's feelings (or of litigation) being two cases in point. See my post to Tracy on "playing black".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I would have 20 scary looking people praying and denouncing The Great Satan in every departure area of every airport in America bankrupting American airlines and the TSAA with lawsuits. Let 100,000 jihadis get caught with plans, vests, semtex whatever so they have to be put through the Federal Court system and then Federal Prisons and use media to prick the bien pesants into agonizing over the incarceration rates of young Muslim men while those men evangelized fellow-inmates to awaken them to their victim status so everyone could go out and geometrically expand the cycle. Far more effective than flying planes into buildings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>They've got some folks who know how to think this way ... just watch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Is the reverse true also? When an American is captured on a battlefield is it then also ok to just eliminate that threat? Remember when answering that question, that Americans are the ones in battlefields in other people's countries, not the other way around.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This is one of the things that has always bothered me about the Omar Khadr 'trial'. Even presuming he threw the grenade (which it appears he probably did not do); I've seen enough people here saying that if someone came into their house with a gun they wouldn't hesitate to shoot the intruder. Khadr does exactly that, goes on trial for murder, and those same people think that's just peachy. Weird.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yeah, that one brought me up short too. And that is exactly the problem with the whole presumption of innocence. On a battlefield the presumption is the enemy is hostile, a threat to your life and you are required to use lethal force to protect yourself and your comrades.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In Eric Holder's universe, we need to Mirandize everyone we shoot at for fear that if they are only wounded and survive we will not be able to obtain a conviction. ( Next we will also need to apologize first and assure them they are not being profiled as a member of a victim class to protect ourselves from being accused of a "hate crime" )
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I don' see these guys as prisoners of war or criminals. I see them as imminent threats to be eliminated. If we are not sure enough about them to just take their pieces off the board with no regrets we have no business holding them the way we have.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Horses for courses, obviously. American citizens who are not captured on a battlefield are entitled to all the protection of our law. Enemies out of uniform in time of war ... there's a *lot* of precedent on that one. Guilt is prima facie.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Eric Holder may turn out to be Obama's Rumsfeld. I do not predict a good outcome in this more than bone-headed decision.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547681569546414.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I agree with the writer that most of the questions asked by the reps were reasonable, but for one. What in heaven's name kind of question is this: How can we be assured that these enemies will be found guilty?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Is this why they want a military trial? In order to assure a guilty verdict? Why bother with a trial at all - civil or military? Just pronounce them guilty and be done with it.