Government employs term ‘terrorist too lightly

According to an Associated Press article, the government admitted to having captured most of the Sept. 11, 2001, ringleaders at the penalty trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. But are they being charged for their crimes? No, but prosecutors have suggested it’s possible they’ll be charged somewhere, someday.

The article suggests this might be due to torture. The government has never disproved persistent allegations saying it performed such acts, and this would explain why the accused couldn’t be tried in the United States.

I know there are many people out there who could care less that the persecution of terrorists in our own country seems to have little to do with anything close to terrorism. And some of you might even enjoy that the terrorists we do catch probably are being tortured in some random country overseas.

But, if terrorism has led us to forget our core beliefs, then the terrorists have won. We can’t simply ignore someone’s civil rights just because he or she is not an American. All men are still created equal, even terrorists.

KSCollegian invites you to be 1st to post feedback here.

It bewilders me the length the courts and Congress will go to hamstring President Bush.

I read these terrorists were referred to as “terrorism suspects” by Roto-Reuters. That’s a pantload in dire need of a courtesy flush.

A wishful extension of the current situation into the hypothetical. What is Karl Rove up to? Sweet Justice, perhaps?…

The webmaster’s blog-within-a-blog. Continuously updated and bumped, newest items at the top. 20:40 W steps on the national crank … Umm, er, uh maybe not I relearned an important lesson today about checking things with reliable sources before believ…

All he needs is a bunch of parsley hanging out of his mouth, to complete the pi–ed off pig.

One can smell the stench out of the image.

As mentioned by another commenter, how ‘inspiring’ the side-by-sides are, almost as if Saddam is reflecting upon and judging the appearance of Mr. Swine.

Then why the hell are we willing to offer them those protections?

Actually, we’re not. But that’s not what you’ll hear from the MSM (unless, of course, they change their headline. Like ABC, who had claimed “High-Value Detainees Will Be Given Pri…

I seem to recall the same mantra coming from the left leading up to the 02 and 04 elections. Yeh, there was Craig Crawford, another sockpuppet for Chris Mouthews, predicting the Dems would end up with 55 seats in the senate. Gooood Waaan Craig, you lost seats.

The whole delusional gang at MSNBC are having orgasms while they spend the entire day today explaining why they will win. Shuster gave a live report from Ohio, and I think he used the phrase “disaster for Bush” at least five times during his report. It’s the best sitcom on the tube today, make sure you tune in for the gaffs and bloopers.

Still waiting for someone, anyone from the left, to give evidence of how we are less protected today from terrorists than we were five years ago. Saying it doesn’t make it so.

President Bush today gets a standing ovation while giving one hellava powerful, passionate speech. Now, it is time for our useless Congress, with the lowest rating ever, to get off their butts and get to work IMMEDIATELY.In my opinion, these detainee…..

Update: I’m the furthest thing from an expert in the field of Geneva law, but I believe Rusty’s right: they’re not being given full POW status, only the same Article 3 protections that were granted to the Gitmo detainees in Hamdan.

Yeah, I was wondering what I was missing that everybody else had cottoned–I thought from the beginning of the speech and all the bellyaching here, he really has no choice because of Hamdan. I thought the point of the speech was to reveal the CIA camps because Hamdan has left them open to questions of legality. I don’t really see what there is to moan about today that wasn’t available when Hamdan was handed down.

You guys my be correct (and I hope you are), but to me this a defeat, a de facto acceptance of a terrorist Bill of Rights.

Bob Owens on September 6, 2006 at 1:57 PM

Ditto, Bob.

We are, effectively, trying to give criminal international terrorist the rights of American Citizens otherwise protected under our constitution.

These people are international criminals at worst, and POWs at best. Yet, even under POW status they shouldn’t be automatically given the rights of citizens.

What these people have done is reduce themselves to rogue animals that require us to cage them for their protection as well as for our own protection. Because the only thing one can do with a wild rogue animal is cage it until it dies, or just kill it. Rights in our context mean nothing to them.

I think the political fallout (that you highlighted above) will be interesting but isn’t the main point of today’s maneuvering.

Taken as a whole, the President’s maneuver today turned the political tables completely around. He stole the terms of debate from the Democrats, and rewrote them, all in a single speech. It will be delightful to watch in coming days and hours as bewildered Democrats try to understand what just hit them, and then sort through the rubble of their anti-Bush national security strategy to see what, if anything, remains.”

Well as long as he’s not playing politics with national security issues, that’s the Dems’ job.

jdpaz on September 6, 2006 at 3:03 PM

“The President just pulled one of the best maneuvers of his entire presidency. By transferring most major Al Qaeda terrorists to Guantanamo, and simultaneously sending Congress a bill to rescue the Military Commissions from the Supreme Court’s ruling Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the President spectacularly ambushed the Democrats on terrain they fondly thought their own. Now Democrats who oppose (and who have vociferously opposed) the Military Commissions will in effect be opposing the prosecution of the terrorists who planned and launched the attacks of September 11 for war crimes.
And if that were not enough, the President also frontally attacked the Hamdan ruling’s potentially chilling effect on CIA extraordinary interrogation techniques, by arguing that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is too vague, and asking Congress to define clearly the criminal law limiting the scope of permissible interrogation.

Taken as a whole, the President’s maneuver today turned the political tables completely around. He stole the terms of debate from the Democrats, and rewrote them, all in a single speech. It will be delightful to watch in coming days and hours as bewildered Democrats try to understand what just hit them, and then sort through the rubble of their anti-Bush national security strategy to see what, if anything, remains.”

Bush is scheduled to make some major announcements between 1:30 and 1:45. Will this be one of the announcements? If this pans out it is sure to be applauded by the ACLU…don’t you think?…

Today, Justice Stevens is probably thanking the high heaven that he lived long enough to decide the Hamdan case in favor of Mr. Hamdan and the rest of his buddies who are currently residing in sunny Guantanamo Bay, along with……