There is something fishy there if you ask me. What kind lawyer gives it up to become a community organizer? Are kickbacks easier to hide? Was he a lousy lawyer? Did he not like working within the confines of the law and want to make up his own set? We'll probably never really know.

If german criminal courts managed to get terrorists sentenced, why should american courts fail? Terrorists are of no concern of military courts, was the oklahoma bomber tried in front of a military court, he wasn't. Terrorism is no new phenomena and so far western countries had no problems trying and sentencing Terrorists (be that the IRA, RAF or ETA) using criminal courts.

Also since when are those guys "war prisoners"? I always thought they were just Terrorists not soldiers? You have to decide either they are soldiers, then they the military courts should take over, however if they are soldiers you can't convict them on the pure fact of killing US soldiers during combat as that is the legit thing to do in war as long as you adhere to the rules OR you don't consider them soldiers then its the job of the criminal courts.

obama is out to ruin America.

See #1 above.

I don't believe the courts will fail (although technically these killers were never read their Miranda Rights, which would get any other case dismissed). Here's what else I don't believe:

- That these terrorists get the forum they want and have asked for specifically.

- That the methods, actions, and decisions of the CIA, the former administration, and our allies be put on trial to please Eric Holder desire to reward terrorism LINK and grind his political ax.

- That the US taxpayers and the City of New York, be burdened with the millions of dollars this show trial will cost. They have already plead guilty to their crimes anyway.

- That a show trial, open to the public, will give added propaganda value to the enemy.

- Giving these foreign killers the same rights as the US citizens they murdered.

FDR didn't put the eight German saboteurs (if we want to talk about Germany) captured during WWII on trial. They went to a military trial and were executed (and they didn't even get a chance to plant their explosives). In fact of the quarter million Axis prisoners held in the US during and after WWII were never afford civil trials, and were never given the rights of US citizens. These killers are war criminals, and their are plenty of examples to follow in these matters.

I'll meet you half way. Fly a judge and jury down to beautiful Gitmo and have the trial in the multi-million dollar state-of-the-art court room built specifically for these animals.

Saboteurs is not the same as a terrorist. Spies fall into a different category. You can't compare apples and oranges by saying that both are food.

Perhaps if they succeeded and someone was killed, right? Must they use hijacked planes to qualify? Al Quaida declared war on the US in the 90's. These operations were planned and financed, civil targets were assigned (sound familiar). They (the Germans) did have near the resources to cripple the US militarily, but might have tied up resources and levels of fear. Do you believe any of the goals in the definition below would have been accomplished had they been successful?

Terrorism- The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

I'm not suggesting the German, including the ones landed, were terrorists. They landed in uniform (which they buried) and Germany did sign the Geneva Convention (and even applied it to a luck few countries). But that doesn't mean there weren't acts of terror committed. You might have heard or the terror bombing of London (you can put Dresden and Tokyo in this category too).

So call it apples and oranges if you wish, the objectives had parallel aspects.

Ah yes, the old game of deciding when violence is a crime and when it is terrorism and when it is allowed by the ROE's. It really depends on the perspective or every soldier is also a terrorist and a murderer by default because war is just one long string of acts of terror and violence. Blowing up that car in Somalia was an act of terror commited by US special forces then - so is the US a terrorist nation? Is every act of terror automatically equal to terrorism? I don't have the answer to that question.

To your other issue - giving those men the rights to a fair trial. I didn't think civil liberties and human rights only applied to american citicens - or those without a rapsheet. Everybody has the right to a trial, you can't just sentence someone in a tribunal like the Nazis and Sowjets did. The Nuremberg trials of war criminals after WW2 are one of the great accomplishments of the US because they decided that justice and due process depended on each other, and to show the Germans and the world the strength of that.

Just my opinion, you'll need to go elsewhere to hunt conspiracy or find an argument.

They have plead guilty, want do die, and are unrepentant...what more do you want? I want to humanely get them to their 72 virgins as soon a feasibly possible. In Germany, they might have got locked up for 10 -20 years, on the German taxpayer's pfennig, sorry euro. Don't worry I'm sure you'll get plenty of chances there to show compassion to murders on German soil. And my opinion will remain the same for your citizens.

I wasn't looking for an argument, just stating the facts. There is no conspiracy, it depends on your point of view. The airraids of german cities during ww2 were certainly percieved as acts of terror by the people living there, and as a necessary tactic to stop the nazis by the allied forces.

That is where we disagree then. It didn't work for the Germans (London) and the Allies shouldn't have thought it would work for them. It only enrages the population, strengthening their resolve, and makes the job harder for the troops. Dresden was propaganda "heaven" for the Nazi's.

maybe you're right, the allies should have thought about that. But it is a historic fact that they didn't. And then there is revenge for the attacks on London and Coventry. The attack on Dresden was on February 9th 1945. The war was lost and there was no propaganda to be had from it. What " propaganda heaven" were you thinking about?

Hindsight...unfortunately doesn't work in this case. The Nazi's didn't think the war was over, and it went on for almost three more months. As you are probably not satisfied with my answer, here's Wikipedia's (which I don't like to use, but it a compilation of a few resources on one spot) (my bolding for emphisis):

"On 16 February, the Propaganda Ministry issued a press release that stated that Dresden had no war industries; it was a city of culture.^[91]

On 25 February, a new leaflet with photographs of two burned children was released under the title "Dresden — Massacre of Refugees," stating that 200,000 had died. Since no official estimate had been developed, the numbers were speculative, but newspapers such as the Stockholm Svenska Morgonbladet used phrases such as "privately from Berlin," to explain where they had obtained the figures.^[92] Frederick Taylor states that "there is good reason to believe that later in March copies of — or extracts from — [an official police report] were leaked to the neutral press by Goebbels's Propaganda Ministry ... doctored with an extra zero to make [the total dead from the raid] 202,040."^[93] On 4 March, Das Reich, a weekly newspaper founded by Goebbels, published a lengthy article emphasizing the suffering and destruction of a cultural icon, without mentioning any damage the attacks had caused to the German war effort.^[85][94]

Taylor writes that this propaganda was effective, as it not only influenced attitudes in neutral countries at the time, but also reached the British House of Commons when Richard Stokes, a Labour Party Member of Parliament (MP), a long term opponent of area-bombing,^[95] quoted information from the German Press Agency (controlled by the Propaganda Ministry). It was Stokes' questions in the House of Commons that were in large part responsible for the shift in the UK against this type of raid. Taylor suggests that, although the destruction of Dresden would have affected people's support for the Allies regardless of German propaganda, at least some of the outrage did depend on Goebbels' massaging of the casualty figures.^[96] "

Of course its insane to try these enemys in Manhattan like its an ordinary criminal case. We may as well have Ariana HUffungton or Marcos Moultsis running the country at this point its so absurd. Bozobama's numbers are in a free-fall, so I guess they figure they'll just do whatever they want whether the American people like it or not from here on out.

He looked a little pained giving Major Garrett (of FOX) that interview yesterday. Probably still had the taste of crow in his mouth. Anyway he did promise transparency in is administration, and it is. Most everyone can see that he's screwing the country over.

Did you actually read the post?