Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, said giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could AVERT war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam over his obligations to the United Nations.

“I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent,” said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure."

was the AUMF a Declaration of War? Absolutely not.

even Bill "“I don’t care about the Constitution!” O’Reilly knows that the Constitution specifies only Congress can declare war

Of course, according to Janet Napolitano, KSM and company are prisoners of the Overseas Contingency Operation, but she's pretty far out there. She said yesterday that the Mexican border was secured, lol.

did you see the story about the college exchange student charged with murder in Italy? Since she's a U.S. citizen, are her rights the ones guarenteed under the U.S. Constitution or are her rights governed by Italian law?

just asking

Today I expect him to tell me there is no sun or moon. That boy is in deep denial. I guess denial is all they have left.

I guess ThinkProgress left that out. Did you check with Counterpunch ?

here we have a bunch of Saudis killing a bunch of Americans on American soil…….where exactly does the military gain jurisdiction?

here's a case where I have no idea why the military had jurisdiction……

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6461215.stm

Nice cliche about a rodent's posterior. Did you think of it yourself, or does thinkprogress.org give you your talking points? Since you apparently do believe that the Constitution is equal to the rear-end of a rat, please cite me to the Constitutional text that guarentees to prisoners of war the right to a trial in our federal courts with all of the attendent rights of due process.

After you find that text, perhaps you can then explain why the bombers of the USS Cole are not entitled to the same rights as KSM. But wouldn't that put Obama and Holder in the same company as O'Reilly and King?

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

"But last night on Fox, the network’s top legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano — who has been known to disagree with Fox’s right-wing narratives on legal issues — disputed that view, citing the constitutional right to be tried in the place where the crime has been committed. “I don’t care about the Constitution!” host Bill O’Reilly responded. The debate continued:

O’REILLY: So why is he entitled to come to New York City to be tried in the civilian criminal court if he’s arrested in Pakistan?

NAPOLITANO: Because the document you don’t want me to talk about says when the government is going to prosecute you, it must do so in the place where the alleged harm was caused."

I guess King and quidpro, like O'Rielly doesn't give a rats ass about the Constitution either

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/17/oreilly-trials-constitution/

This points to the perverse nature of the Administration's decision. Obama is telling terrorists around the world that they will receive greater legal protections and rights if they attack civilian targets, rather than military targets. This will, of course, just create greater incentives for terrorists to attack softer civilian targets to promote terror. Remember this if another terror attack occurs on US soil.

Our legal system is nothing more than a travesty, tilted to benefit those who prosper financially. I value the security of this nation, well above those who call for it's destruction. If these scumbags are put on trial to aid a partisan agenda, rather than secure convictions, I do hope New Yorkers turn their city upside-down. They'll have a right to.

I've seen this reasoning quite a bit today, Reverend. It reveals the hypocrisy of the left, the kangaroo court nature of the coming proceedings and the administration's complete lack of integrity.

It's "We'll give you a fair trial because we know you'll be found guilty," which is a mockery of our court system. Of course, what happens next time, when a soldier forgets to read a terrorist his rights on the battlefield then the terrorist walks?

Obama and Holder don't care. They've got a Really Big Show to put on.

Tory, the only plus is, I don't think the television cameras are allowed inside those federal courtrooms. I certainly hope they don't change that.

Ramseh Yousef, nephew of KSM, was the first WTC bomber in 1993. He was tried, convicted, and none of it posed a threat or turned into a circus. The Blind Sheik, is another.

Obama and Holder know that they have enough evidence without relying on tortured confessions to convict these five criminals. The trials will be a good example for us and the rest of the world that America has put aside it's rogue years from 2001-2009 and once again trusts in, an upholds, it's Constitutional system of law and order.

To say we have never dealt with people like this before is incorrect.

Military commissions were an artificial and needless scapegoat-route for Bush/Cheney to avoid having their reign of torture-terror and treaty violations exposed.

I'm trying really hard to find a good reason behind this decision. For the administration, which seems more concerned with perception than reality, I guess it looks to the world like we are trying extra hard to be fair. The only problem with that theory is that radical Islamic groups could care less.

The WTC killers came to the US with the specific intent to kill as many Americans as they could. Well, that and to buy as many lap dances and nail as many hookers as they could, but I digress. They effectively declared war on our country by flying airplanes (or attempting to) into buildings that are symbolic of the greatness of this country.

Really, it's hard to know what to do with these men. We've never dealt with anything of this caliber before. I think that trying them in an open, televised courtroom is an error. That just gives them a stage for their show.