If you try the terrorists as if they committed an act of war...

[WCGreen]

Doesn't that elevate them to quasi statehood status?

My whole thinking about this is to bring them down to what they really are; rogue criminals.

And if, I believe they are, criminals, try them as criminals.

We tried the first World Trade Center as criminals, we tried the sniper as a criminal and we tried McVie et al as criminals.

Why does the Right wish to elevate these international thugs into something much more than they really are?

Oh, that's right, they have been stoking that fire since 9/12...

[FiveGoodMen]

1. Agreed.

The whole thing should have been handled as a criminal matter, not a war.

I know why the Bushies got that wrong.

I don't know why America followed.

We must be stupid.

[gratuitous]

2. But we wuz reeeel scared!

Besides, how could we have new footage of stuff blowin' up real good if we didn't go to war over a criminal act? Do you know how boring it is to track down the bad guys, bring them in, and try them in court with boring old laws and procedures and stuff? So much sexier and exciting to mobilize thousands and thousands of military personnel, fire up the jets, carriers, and troop transports, and go huntin' them bad guys! Bring it on! Dead or alive! Rah, rah, rah! America, fuck yeah!

[WCGreen]

3. That fevor scarred the shit out of me...

[dysfunctional press]

4. i think that michael moore said it best vicariously through Rip Torn in 'Canadian Bacon'...

"Well, sir, we're not going to re-open missile factories just to fight some creeps running around in exploding rental cars, are we, sir?"

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

5. The five alleged terrorists will be tried under criminal law, won't they?

I assumed that Holder was saying this, that they would seek the death penalty under criminal statutues. They will be tried in civilian courts, not the military commissions in Guantanamo that wanted them to be considered enemy combatants.

I'm not sure if you're saying that they won't be, or that you don't think the Republicans and their military commissions behind closed doors make sense. Personally, I want public trials where the world can see they get their day in court and get to present their best defense. I don't like the way they have already been tried and convicted in the public mind. I assume only the clearest and strongest cases will be brought to trial, but weren't some of the Guantanamo detainees sold to the CIA for a bounty by Afghan warlords, making their culpability suspect? I would rather see one or more go free than to have the slightest doubt about their innocence or guilt in closed door proceedings as the Republicans want.

[WCGreen]

6. I said pretty clearly to treat and try them as criminals...

It's the right that wanted to treat them as war criminals.

The question that begs to be asked but never was or is is can a state of war really exist between a rogue faction in a failed state and a nation state? If not, then they are criminals and should be treated as such.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

7. K&R