Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 327 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

Accused Terrorists to Face Criminal Charges

Four men accused of a terrorist plot have been… jailed. On United States soil. And today they will be taken in front of a court. In White Plains, New York. To be charged under the auspices the American justice system.

Also this week, 90 U.S. Senators cut off funding for the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility… because they say that no prison on U.S. soil is competent enough to holding terrorists, and that the American system of justice isn’t good enough to put terrorist criminals on trial.

If the 90 Senators really mean what they say, then they should be scrambling to get these men deported to Guantanamo. If they don’t mean what they say, then they should be ashamed of themselves.

5 comments to Accused Terrorists to Face Criminal Charges

  • Dave Klovdahl

    Love this stuff

  • I can’t believe the narrow-mindedness of this article. Here’s Obama’s for dealing with the Gitmo detainees:

    1. Those who have violated American criminal laws and will be tried in federal courts;

    2. Those who violated the laws of war and are best tried through military commissions;

    3. Those who have been ordered released by the courts;

    4. Those who can be transferred safely to another country;

    5. Those who cannot be prosecuted, but pose a clear danger to the American people.

    You can see that some will be prosecuted on US soil. The four from the NY terror plot fit into the first group.

    And Congress did the right thing by saying “no” to Obama until after they’ve seen his plan and the actual cost of transferring, securing, and prosecuting the detainees. Evaluations need to be made. Cases need to be reviewed. It’s your money – don’t you want it used in the most responsible way possible, with every penny accounted for?

    Here’s the WH press secretary’s :

    “…we share Congress’ belief that before resources are given for a project, that they need and deserve a more detailed plan. The president will lay out the framework on many of those decisions…”

    I thought you folks might have decent liberal blog here, but time and again, I find otherwise. I won’t be back, and I’m sure it’s “good riddance.”

    • Lin, you keep on saying you won’t come back, and then you do. Oh, well. I wouldn’t expect someone associated with a Tea Party group to be a good judge of what makes a worthwhile liberal blog.

      It’s category 5 that’s the most serious problem. Prisoners who “cannot be prosecuted, but pose a clear danger to the American people” is a made-up legal category that relies on the authority of the President of the United States to prejudge, without any trial, the guilt of prisoners.

      if there is really such clear evidence that these people pose a clear danger to the American people, then they could be convicted of conspiracy, plain and simple. What’s happening is that President Obama, like President Bush, is telling us that he has concluded that these people are dangerous, without actually providing any evidence or giving an opportunity of self-defense.

      If you care about true justice, rather than just being protected from things that frighten you, then you’ll find this approach offensive.

    • Jim

      Well, if you interpret the article to mean what you want it to mean in the manner you wish it to be meant, then of course the it will be as narrow-minded as you want it to be. And if you huff off like a drama queen after that, then you neatly preserve that impression. Well done.

      For anyone else who hasn’t huffed off, want to try juxtaposing Obama’s five point system with the American system of criminal justice before Bush took office? Number five is a real doozy. Who establishes “clear danger”?

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>