Obama '08?

I only have to read this and wonder if you and the writers have lost their minds? Good grief, that is probably one of the most ridiculous statements ever posted here or referenced on this forum. I think it depends upon what they did, where they did it, and where and how they are captured, under what circumstances, etc.

"By contrast, there is no question about the legitimacy of U.S. federal courts to incapacitate terrorists."

When the levees broke, it came under Federal jurisdiction. Army Corp. FAILED! Not only on Aug. 29, 2005, but for 40 years of neglect, said a district court judge , finding for the City, if th4e Corps. had done ITS job!

------Any other bright ideas?

The levee failures prompted investigations of their design and construction which belongs to the USACE as mandated in the Flood Control Act of 1965 and into their maintenance by the local Levee Boards (who prevented the Army Corps from building flood gates at the mouth of the drainage canals at Lake Pontchartrain

As indicated by their voting, members of the military are overwhelmingly Republican. Thus, the Republicans are responsible for the Army Corp failures.

okie wrote:

I only have to read this and wonder if you and the writers have lost their minds? Good grief, that is probably one of the most ridiculous statements ever posted here or referenced on this forum. I think it depends upon what they did, where they did it, and where and how they are captured, under what circumstances, etc.

"By contrast, there is no question about the legitimacy of U.S. federal courts to incapacitate terrorists."

Why do you wonder that?

Do you disagree with the statement in the article that numerous terror suspects have been successfully procescuted in the United States? That federal courts have already handled cases just as sensitive as the ones proposed?

That if terrorists had the ability to strike NY that they would do it regardless of whether or when we have a trial? That the military commision system is antiquated and subject to more legal questions than the federal system? That those convicted in federal courts are still safely behind bars? What did you disagree with? Do you really think that with all the inanity that is posted here that this article is "one of the most ridiculous" ones?

Why do I wonder that? Hmmm, how many reasons do you need? First of all, I do not think an enemy combatant committing an act of war against the United States, a non citizen that lives somewhere else that was taken into custody in another country, no, I do not believe for a minute that such a person deserves all the rights of a garden variety criminal. If that was the case, we would have had to read their right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer for every enemy combatant taken into custody in any war in history, which is so utterly preposterous as to make me wonder if you and members of the Obama administration are actually sane.

For me, the context of the activity, the location of the activity, citizenship status, and a few other things would enter into my decision if I was part of the administration. I am not a lawyer, and there would be much further development of how I think the policy should be established, but one thing is clear to me at this point, and that is that civilian courts for basically enemy combatants is utterly and totally ridiculous on its face. It would be establishing a precedent that is so far into never never land as to be not even worth considering. There are many things to consider here, but I believe a distinction must be made between criminal status or enemy combatant status, and that is why Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was in Gitmo, treated as an enemy combatant, which rightfully allows us and dictates to us to be able to treat him appropriately and use him appropriately to prevent further acts of war.