Republicans say the darndest things! Or rather, the DUMBEST things

[Drake Tungsten]

If the government has no authority to hold him after he is declared innocent of a specific crime, the government has no authority to hold any other enemy combatant. Because the status determination is the legal basis for the detention. Not the trial.

This is both true and completely irrelevant to the point I'm making.

Holder clearly has the authority to proceed the way he has decided to, but that doesn't make his decision any less moronic.

[Ramo]

To do anything else harms the credibility of our civilian judicial

You keep repeating this without this nonsense without justifying it.

Either there is a problem with the combat status determination process and the indefinite detention framework or there is not (I don't like it at all, but I don't remember you expressing any concern here). The criminal trial is not necessarily relevant to this process). Guilt or innocence of a specific crime doesn't have to tell you whether a person satisfies "enemy combatant" status.

[Drake Tungsten]

You keep repeating this without this nonsense without justifying it.

You're a ****ing ****** if you can't understand this. If you aren't being deliberately obtuse and really do need this spelled out for you, the Newsweek article I posted makes the obvious case for why putting someone on trial while offering them no hope for release should they be acquitted would harm the credibility of the U.S. judicial system.

[Ramo]

You're a **** if you can't understand that when we put high profile terrorists through open trials, we have far more credibility than if we shut them off from access to the outside world.

[Ramo]

Either criticize the combat status adjudication process and the legal framework surrounding enemy combatants, or don't. But your argument here is idiotic.

[Drake Tungsten]

You're a **** if you can't understand that when we put high profile terrorists through open trials, we have far more credibility than if we shut them off from access to the outside world.

Yes, putting high-profile terrorists on trial where their fate is either execution (if found guilty) or indefinite detention (if found innocent) surely makes the U.S. judicial system seem fair and credible...

[Ramo]

Every enemy combatant is subject to indefinite detention. If you don't think that's fair or credible, that's what you should be criticizing.

But an open trial is more credible than a closed trial. Period.

[Drake Tungsten]

You're welcome to make a relevant point any time now. Your strawman regarding the fairness of enemy combatant status is puzzling, to say the least...

[Ramo]

I'll make a point as soon as you can construct an argument more elaborate than a bald assertion. You're not even bothering to attempt a half-baked slippery slope case.

[Drake Tungsten]

Now you're demanding that I provide more than assertions and my opinion on the issue of whether civilian trials that result in indefinite detention even when the defendant is acquitted can be considered "fair" and "credible" or not?

Jesus, this is a poor, poor showing on your part. You were a much better poster when your party wasn't in power and you didn't feel compelled to defend idiotic positions like this...

[Ramo]

No trials result in indefinite detention. A botched military trial would result in indefinite detention. Indefinite detention is completely incidental to the process by which he is (or isn't) being tried.

[Drake Tungsten]

A botched military trial would result in indefinite detention.

Military trials make no pretense of being as fair as civilian trials or offering the same protections to the defendants. You support bringing civilian trials down to the same level, yet claim to not understand why this would harm the credibility of the civilian justice system.

It's really pretty simple. If you're mainly concerned with fairness, you put the terrorists on trial in a civilian court and let them go if they are acquitted. If you're mainly concerned with security, you put the terrorists on trial in a military tribunal (if you try them at all) and detain them until the end of hostilities no matter what the outcome. Putting terrorists on trial in civilian court and continuing to detain them even if they are acquitted is a suboptimal strategy in terms of both fairness and security.

[Ramo]

Military trials make no pretense of being as fair as civilian trials or offering the same protections to the defendants. You support bringing civilian trials down to the same level, yet claim to not understand why this would harm the credibility of the civilian justice system.

Again, no trial results in indefinite detention. Your assertion would be like claiming, "you want to bring the fairness of military trials down to the same level as arbitrary detention." It's convoluted reasoning.

It's really pretty simple. If you're mainly concerned with fairness, you put the terrorists on trial in a civilian court and let them go if they are acquitted. If you're mainly concerned with security, you put the terrorists on trial in a military tribunal (if you try them at all) and detain them until the end of hostilities no matter what the outcome. Putting terrorists on trial in civilian court and continuing to detain them even if they are acquitted is a suboptimal strategy in terms of both fairness and security.

First of all, you're conflating tribunals regarding combat status and regarding specific terrorist actions. KSM is being tried for his complicity in 9/11 (and other actions).

But how is a civvie trial a suboptimal strategy in terms of security? It is equivalent (to first order) in terms of security relative to a military trial. And it's better in terms of fairness and credibility (which has second order benefits to security) due to its openness.

It is not my ideal policy. I think that our current policies towards suspected terrorists are not sufficiently open. And bringing more cases into the civilian system would be an improvement, so I approve of Holder's steps.

[Drake Tungsten]

First of all, your conflating combat status tribunals and trials regarding specific terrorist actions.

No, I'm not.

It is equivalent (to first order) in terms of security relative to a military trial.

No, it's not. The extra protections afforded defendants in civilian courts put classified sources and methods at greater risk of exposure than in military tribunals.

Again, no trial results in indefinite detention.

While this point is irrelevant, it does bring up an interesting observation that shows just how messed up mixing civilian courts with indefinite detention is. Under Holder's plan, a rational KSM would prefer not to have his day in court. The best case outcome at trial is the same as the outcome of not going to trial (indefinite detention), while going to trial runs the risk of a guilty verdict and execution. Is a justice system in which the defendant can only hurt himself by going to trial really a fair one?

[Ramo]

No, I'm not.

Yes, you are. Do you think the military would possibly let KSM walk at some point in the future?

No, it's not. The extra protections afforded defendants in civilian courts put classified sources and methods at greater risk of exposure than in military tribunals.

Yes, it is. The DOJ obviously isn't going to allow potentially compromising evidence to publicly air in this trial.