Saturday, November 21, 2009

"Let's Roll.... Over."

The father of Todd "Let's Roll" Beamer attended the Senate hearings on Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try KSM in a civilian court.

He was impressed, but not favorably.
The committee, chaired by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.), displayed the division in our country not only visually—the Democrats were seated on the left and the Republicans on the right—but in every aspect of the proceedings. I expected that some members would agree with Mr. Holder and that others would have challenging questions about his decision. What I did not anticipate was the level of partisanship showed by the majority party. It seemed clear to me and other family members of victims that party loyalty is trumping concern for America's security interests.


Blogger A Nonymous said...

Todd's father probably would enjoy a trial and an execution (and not necessarily in that order).

However, the civil court has the jurisdiction in this matter.

If you don't like it, get 9 other Supreme Court justices.

November 21, 2009 at 6:35 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Except that that the Supreme Court didn't decide that KSM had to be tried in civilian court, Obama did.

Don't blame ya' a bit for trying to foist this reckless and unpopular decision onto the court and out of Obama's lap. It could cost him politically.

And, of course, insulting the father of a dead hero is classy, as usual.

November 21, 2009 at 9:51 PM 
Blogger A Nonymous said...

Besides the civil court having jurisdiction, I don't think a military tribunal would be perceived as a fair trial.
It's no insult that Todd's father wants KSM dead and a fair trial isn't exactly a priority. This is why victims and their families aren't jurors.
There are other 9/11 families that do want the trial in NYC.

Obama made the decision based on the Supreme Courts previous rulings. That's the way it works. The court resolves the relevant legal point, then the President and Attorney General proceed so the case won't get overturned by the court later for having a military tribunal.

November 22, 2009 at 1:57 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...


You should read the history of this. It was the Hamdan case which ruled the Detainee Treatment Act unconstitutional (in part). It was replaced with the Military Commissions Act, which is legal.

There is no legal reason to try these terrorists in Federal District Court. They can and should be tried in a military tribunal. If my recollection is correct, some were being tried by a tribunal and Obama stopped that and still some others are going to be tried in a military tribunal.

Don't let the facts get in your way, and I agree with Gil that insulting the father of a dead hero (who has more balls than you will ever have) is a class act.

Those of us that frequent this blog have grown to expect that from you.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

November 22, 2009 at 5:52 PM 
Blogger A Nonymous said...

The Bush administration had all sorts of crazy legal theories to justify torture, enemy combatant status, rendition, illegal wiretaps, etc. I'm sure you agreed with many of these dubious conclusions that exceeded their authority. You are continuing to rely upon their flawed reasoning and poor interpretations of the law and Constitution.
I'll trust Obama's and Holder's understanding of the Constitution over yours, any day.

Todd and the others on that plane showed what civilians could do that the military could not. Therefore, besides being legally correct, it seems MORE fitting and poetic that civilian courts handle it as well.

Just because the Military Commissions Act was passed, doesn't necessarily make it "legal". Part of the MCA regarding habeas corpus was already declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Plenty in the "shoot first ask questions later crowd" were all to eager to suspend habeas corpus. The rest of us were happy to see Obama restore it.

November 23, 2009 at 1:21 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Anon Diano:

Your understanding of the separation of powers and the Supreme Court's unwillingness to encroach on presidential war powers has been evidenced by numerous rulings. The fact that Obama is ceding his authority to other branches of government is scary, but it is within his authority.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

November 23, 2009 at 11:05 AM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home