Very nice Spencer. 20 reps...are you kidding me?!?! LEGIT.

I did 5 rounds in 10:47 of:
100# Push Jerk 15 reps
105# assisted pull-ups

1:09
1:39
2:41
2:36
2:42

WOW....20 BW OHS....very impressive!

No rest for the not so bright. Sitting in EST, so it's 8p saturday.

Likely to have to take a rest day Mon due to work, so I'll have to find a sub workout. Eva followed by L pull ups and jerks? Maybe something legs heavy?

Im not talking about the people that posted before me but why do people post their WOD times if your not going to do what the WOD says.

#6 Lawrence,

Honestly I think it's just because you get a sense of satisfaction showing other people what you've accomplished, no matter what you do. I know that's why I post my times :)

#6 Lawrence,

Man of us use this as our workout log. For example, ystd I did a version of the WOD that fits the requirements of CFSB and posted that. I have no idea if I will still be doing CFSB, MP WOD's or whatever next time this comes up, but posting will let me know what I did last time.

Plus, I always learn from reading and analyzing what other folks are doing.

Comment #6 Lawrence,

Those aren't posts, they are FRATs. :)

Trying these people is the correct move. We need to prove they have done what we claim. Public trial where everyone can review the evidence. I grew up on Long Island and 60 people were killed from my home town including several child hood friends. I don't have a problem with it and I don't know anyone who is related to a victim who has a problem with it. In fact, we're happy to see justice done.

Check out the point in the CF Kalmar vid @ 56-59s. Ouch! That had to hurt. It would make good sense not to have blocks on the ground when dropping the bar from overhead to avoid that sort of thing happening. Probably quite easy to sustain a hairline fracture. Hope the guy was okay.

I agree with Lawrence!! EXAMPLE: Take a WOD that takes a pretty fit person 15 mins to do as RX'd. Someone mods the workout and then posts a time of 6 minutes or something. Why not just do something closer to the actual workout that requires effort?

I agree with #6 Lawrence, why post your mod WOD if you just cant compare with anyone?

O beautiful rest day,
thou art prettier than a virgin muscle-up,
more potent than a one handed fran,
your glory lasts forever,
longer than eva
more eternal than murph
O rest day of glory,
keep me far from rhabdo,
may you endure for a whole rotation of the stars in the sky,
and then when thou leavest me,
I will look for you again,
On the fourth day, just as the sun rises over
the Ranch,
bringing rest to my bones and hope to my soul

The rowing cert taught by Angela Hart was phenominal!! Tons of great information and lots of fun!! If u want to improve your wod times or just get better at rowing...go to this cert!! More importantly...if you want to be a better coach...TAKE THIS CERT!! Definitely worth the money....priceless information and coaching!!! And thanks to Adam and Marla for hosting!! Woop!!

why was "first crossfit rest day!" deleted, if I may ask (no, I didn't post it)? seems a bit heavyhanded, especially when compared to some of the other posts seen on this board. the poster just seemed to be expressing a little enthusiasm for completing their first 3-1 cycle.

Well done, Spencer!

beutiful poem i did'nt think it could be put into words so functinally lol

I wonder when they'll post a video of say, Speal, doing like 40 BW OHS.

We will give these men a trail on the bases that we are Americans that believe in Freedom and Justice for All! We have a high standard not a double standard, it's not perfect but it's what makes us the United States of America!

I don't understand why Holder is "in the dock". Isnt it pretty common to bring alleged criminals to trial in the jurisdiction of the scene of the crime?

To me this makes sense. And this is why America is a great country, because we dont detain people indefinitely and people dont 'disappear'....

The next problem is the martyrdom catch 22. If they get the chair, they are heroes, if they get life in prison, they will be martyrs. How do you punish these nut jobs without giving these loonbags legitimacy?

#11 Sam,

Look at comment #184 from yesterday. I gave my 2 cents on that subject. Let me know what you think.

much needed. after the 800s and kb swings etc
I knew this would be a sweet rest day.. now, gotta hammer out 7 or 8 hours of sleep.

To Comment #9
There is a chance that the terrorists could get off scott free or have their sentences reduced based on precedence in earlier criminal cases regarding admissibility of evidence as well as supposed abuse by the police. Also, the lack of a Miranda warning until they are arrested by the FBI or US marshal's service (which should be coming soon) could jeopardize the case. The military tribunals were made for trying these guys. Furthermore, this is a venue that is not designed to handle classified evidence, and all evidence gathered in A-Stan and from the CIA will also be inadmissible because of what I discussed earlier. The terrorists will have the best civil rights lawyers available, provided by the ACLU and the NYCLU.
If the terrorists do get convicted in the criminal trial, expect appeals all the way to the US Supreme Court. These appeals trials WILL be messy, and there is a high likelihood that the guilty ruling will be overruled.
/rant
Anyway, I am making up Eva tomorrow, scaling down to Helen standards (5 rft, running 800m instead of 400m on the runs).

Can someone tell where I can find more
info on cfsb and the other thing with
westside barbell.

We held that competition as the first real CrossFit Competition in Sweden. It was a blast!

Here are some pictures: http://www.crossfitnordic.se/bilder-fran-sm-6171/

And som more here: http://www.crossfitnordic.se/utvardering-av-crossfit-sm-2009-6286/

Our website is in swedish though...

Rowed 2km today

8:27 minutes

These trials fundamentally highlight the split in the public's view of these heinous acts against innocent civilians in particular and the violent action of radical Islam in general which is whether these are just a series of unrelated 'crimes' or 'acts of some form of war'. There are many issues in adjudicating these in our domestic legal system:
1. These people are not U.S. citizens and thus are not privileged to the full protections of a U.S. citizen. To extent these rights to a non citizen, particularly ones who have done great harm to our fellow citizens, cheapens the value of citizenship and is frankly disgusting to those of us who view citizenship of the United States of American as a great and important honor and blessing.
2. As mentioned earlier there is much information that has been gathered that is highly confidential in terms of what we know and how we've come to know it and much of it is still likely very critical to the ongoing work in destroying the Al Qaeda and Taliban organizations and probably includes information relative to other countries involvement with these organizations. This intelligence, as we've learned from similar trials, can be compromised during the course of the trial putting current and future lives of those foreigners working with us and trusting us, our fellow military and intelligence citizens and innocent people going about their business anywhere these animals might strike.
3. This just opens up a forum for political agitators that only serves to embolden our enemies and demoralize our allies and our fellow military and intelligence citizens.

This belongs in a military tribunal that should be expedited with appropriate confidentiality and with justice that provides these people with a chance to present their case if they so choose. If found guilty and they don't provide any more intelligence value then they should be exterminated post haste.

These people picked up on a battle field without uniform nor following any other protocols of the international signatories of the various rules of war should not be accorded the rights and privileges reserved for those proper political entities that have signed on and follow these rules. To do so only cheapens the meaning, purpose and intended justice of these rules.

To accord the rights and privileges of our citizenship and rules of war to these animals is a dangerous form of decadence that we can not much longer enjoy given the stakes of terrorism combined with increasingly possible access to nuclear weapons.

9-11 should have been a wake up call that we need to become more serious in response to these violent actions against us and our fellow civilized nations. No good can ever become of loosening barbarism onto the world. History's primary struggle has been between the forces of civilization trying to conquer and contain barbarity. I'm on the side of civilization even if protecting civilization requires some dirty work...it really is that important!

Echoing those posters more familiar with the issues, I believe they should be tried in a military court. They do not deserve the legal protections afforded to U.S. citizens in court.

And Hillbilly, while I agree with you 100%, the rest day discussions are a tradition. I personally don't care for them and find them unproductive, but my general response is to not partake of them. I'd avoid them and go post on the forum instead.

At 205lbs. BW, you have set a new standard for CrossFit with OHS. Most of us are still trying to get 15 reps. I'm coming up to school next weekend. Be ready to run some hills! We Love you, Mom and Dad!

My name is Scott, and I have been doing Crossfit for 2 months now. Let me start by saying that I LOVE this workout and LOVE the results I have been seeing. I am a 3 time recipient of knee surgery on my left knee. Previously, it was filled with fluid and in pain when I would bend down or kneel on it. Since starting Crossfit, most, if not all, of the fluid is gone and I am relatively pain free. I am also extremely confident that if I had a much better eating habit than I do now (its not THAT bad, just could be better), my results would be even more noticeable and amazing. Once again, thank you. I have also started 2 friends on Crossfit since beginning myself.

My question is this. I was always taught that too much of a good thing, is a bad thing, with almost anything - particularly your body. I have noticed that Crossfit tends to prescribe a LOT of pullups. For instance, on Tuesday it was max rounds of 10 or 15 (depending on the workout you chose), Friday it was 150, and Saturday it is 75 - that's a LOT of pullups. At what point does it start to become detrimental to your body to continue doing these? For someone like me, I don't find it terribly bad because I can't do more than 3 unassisted pullups. I always use the gravitron machine or do jumping pulls anyway. Nevertheless, it is still a lot.

Does Crossfit assume that not every one does every WOD and therefore hopes the picking and choosing of WODs will eliminate a cycle of over 300 pull ups in less than 4 days? Please let me know. Thank you so much for your time, help, and daily postings of the hardest, most intense, and most exciting workouts I have ever seen.

Sincerely,

Scott

This is Daniel B's response from ystd. It is such a good part of the answer to the question that it deserves to be re-printed here.

"Question:
It seems like 10-15 mins is a pretty good time for this one as RX'd. Why do so many people modify the WOD to make it easier, and then complete the WOD in 6-7 mins? Why not do something closer to the RX and work a little harder?"

I'm actually working with my wife and her friend right now, and they're really getting into crossfit. Obviously, they're far from where I am, as I've been crossfitting for over a year now. So I'm doing all of the workouts as prescribed, and they're doing scaled versions. I notice the same thing that you do, that their times are a lot "better" than mine, and I've had the same thoughts you are having. However, I've come to understand that this is due to the fact that I have to scale all of the workouts down so much for them to be able to do the exercises without hurting themselves, along with being able to concentrate on the proper technique for each exercise. So maybe they could step it up a little, but as newcomers to crossfit, it would probably be at the cost of developing proper form and getting to know what their limits are (injury-pervention-wise). At the same time, they're still pretty smoke-checked after the workouts that may only last for 10 minutes or less.

At the same time, some that have really good times for scaled workouts may in fact not be pushing themselves like they should. It's really just up to that persons situation.

I hope it helps to hear some input from someone that has a first-hand perspective on the subject."

__

bingo back now. Each WOD has a "sweet spot" in terms of the metabolic challenge that Coach and Lauren envision. On BrandX GuardDawg had a brilliant dissertation of this, I think on a "Fran" day. My "Fran" PR is 6:22 as Rx'd. My "virtual Fran" is 1:48 I think. In order to experience the same type of effect that a 2:00 "Fran" creates I need to be able to do a sub-4:00 "Fran" with 65# or thereabouts; I was 5ish last time I tried that.

Why do we scale? Safety, first and always. Other than that, why scale? Coach has answered the question "should I do WOD xyz as Rx'd no matter how long it takes, or scale it to go faster?" with a single word -> "YES". There is merit to both. Crossfit is "you vs. you." I have posted here and on the Board that one should approach each WOD with the question "what do I wish to accomplish with this WOD today?" Then scale, or not, to achieve that training effect.

The only true comparison to others is as Rx'd, and that only if you have similar movement standards. Crossfit is you vs. you, aiming today to create a better tomorrow version of you c/w yesterday.

KSM has already plead guilty. Is this not an inverse version of double jeopardy? Why try someone who has already plead?

Politics is the only reason. We need to be clear: this is a part of the on-going effort of the Obamaites to demonize George Bush and Dick Cheney for having the temerity to make difficult, principled decisions in the defense of this nation.

Shame on them, right? Better dead that politically incorrect, even potentially.

Our job, as the defeatists see it, is to walk around the world with our tail between our legs, bowing to emperors whose predecessors started global wars, and to Sheikhs who view women as disposable chattel, and to apologize for our very existence, and past efforts to create something good in this world.

To Hell with them all. Our national polity hasn't been right in the head since Soviet propaganda took hold in our universities in roughly the mid-1960's. Reason is gone, and with it the possibility of genuine idealism.

What we have now, that passes for idealism, is a monstrous, morally blind, complacent hatred of everything that smacks of intolerance, even intolerace for manifestly evil, murderous human beings.

Nothing good can come of this, since that category has been sent to a concentration camp for "summary treatment".

Scott,
I've been doing the Cross Fit main page WODs as best as possible for about three months now so while not much more experienced then you, I'll share my thoughts regarding your question.

The main page WODs are designed for elite athletes who have been doing Crossfit for a long time or are conditioned for Crossfit WODs through other elite athletic related activities.

The huge pull-up load in the last cycle is probably a good challenge for the elite Cross Fit athlete but beyond the capability for most of us newbies or less athletically gifted. The key is to scale these WODs to your capability so that they are very challenging for your level but doable without injury.

I'm not yet capable of the huge load of pull-ups prescribed in this last cycle so I scaled them down. Yesterday's WOD I found my arms and back so trashed from the scaled Eva WOD that I could only get 5 L PUs the first round. I sensed that I was at my physical limit for PUs so simply did L hangs from the PU bar and held the L at 20 seconds per round then followed it with a few tuck PUs and a couple of kipping PUs. I did not fret that I couldn't do 15 L PUs and did not try to force myself to. I also scaled to three rounds instead of five which was more than sufficient to push my physical ability to the limit and leave me sufficiently sore and exhausted today.

I am approaching Cross Fit as a long term endeavor and thus mapping out progress in three, six and 1 year increments. My goal at this point is to work my way by my 1 year anniversary to doing the main page WODs as RXd, but to get there I will scale as needed. That is sometimes hard to do if your personality traits tends toward impatience and competitiveness.

Take your time, learn the various movements with correct form, allow time to build adequate strength and endurance to perform the various WODs at your pace. In the early days err to the side of avoiding injury and/or burn out.

I have a background of bodybuilding and general athletic activity and fitness and have made tremendous gains in strength, improvements in competence and improvements in conditioning from three months of Cross Fit. I've gained about 5 lbs while reducing body fat a couple percentage points and my body has noticeably changed as commented by friends and family while only being able to do only a handful of the WODs as prescribed.

Right on Barry!!!!

24 hours, as rx'd :)

Thanks for hooking me up with the Zone Diet. : )

Per Barry Cooper's comment...

Few people today, particularly well meaning liberal leaning folks, understand the amount of influence on and damage to our shared American culture that the Soviet Union intentionally and systematically has perpetuated through the hard left parts of our society who have come to dominate our mass culture (TV, pop music, Hollywood, newspapers, network news, and educational institutions).

Lots of otherwise well meaning and reasonably intelligent people accept much of this propaganda - multiculturalism, political correctness, moral and cultural relativism, environmentalism, etc. - without having reasoned into their acceptance nor thinking through the consequences of these malignant and decadent ideologies.

Not good in the best of times, very dangerous in an environment of nuclear and biological weapon proliferation into the hands of truly evil people/nations.

Crossfit Kalmar, look at all those Eleiko plates !!!!

I'll post my 2 cents worth reference scaled WOD.

Each of our fitness levels vary.
Each of our lives vary.
Some days I am rested, strong and powerful.
Some days, after many hours of work, family responsibilities, etc., I am not.
Some days my time is a factor.
And some massives quanities of reps I struggle.
But I do something, and in my mind that's OK.
And it tells others that it's OK to scale.
The WODS are a guide. Tackle them as you want. But don't be critical of others.
Their posts are their accomplishment.
And it may be a tremendous one.

Laura f/47/5'7/150

Oh and today's rest day, I ran a mile just for fun.

I too once thought that the pull ups were too many. I could only do a few in a day. I was incredulous at the volume folks were doing. I might not have believed if I didn't actually see it. A year later and I can do them all. Keep at it, it'll come. How sweet it is when it does!

The question of KSM's trial is not a left/right ideological divide issue. Rather, it's a question of whether you believe him to be a soldier of an enemy military at war with the US or an alleged criminal. A soldier should be dealt with in a military tribunal for committing war crimes (targeting civilians). An alleged criminal should be dealt with in the criminal justice system.

If we blur this distinction, we risk losing the key advancement in democracy for which the US is rightfully recognized: codifying individual liberties in a bill of rights and honoring those regardless of the circumstances of a particular case. Kangaroo courts, smoke-filled rooms, suspension of habeus corpus--all of these things are antithetical to our founding documents. Even if it's a long, frustrating and messy process, we must insist upon due process in all circumstances--including for such a heinous act as 9/11.

Ryan # 42,

I agree with the premise you propose. I disagree strongly with your conclusion, however. 9/11 was an act of war. It was an act of aggression by a foreign agent inflicted upon American citizens on American soil. KSM is analogous to Himmler, et al, and should be tried by military tribunal a la Nuremberg. His was not a criminal act perpetrated one citizen upon another. Our founding documents are clearly meant to govern conduct among and between citizens, and do not have a place in the prosecution of war criminals.

You are right, and then I believe you are wrong. I further believe that those who are presently making these calls are just as wrong. The do not have the intestinal fortitude, the courage, to make the hard, correct, unpopular call. They shirk from the hard work of leadership, and therefore do not lead. I pray we, as a nation, will not bear any negative consequences because of this.

Run 5K

It's been raining alot lately due to our east coast weather. First nice day for a run in a week.

Ryan,
I agree with you that this is a question of whether this is an act of war or a crime. However like Bingo I disagree with your conclusion and also point out that this is indeed very politically charged. Most of the left is aligned on the conclusion that this is a crime and should be handled as such while many of the center and most on the right see this as some form of war or at the least beyond anything our criminal justice system is designed to handle.

Where your analysis is mistaken is viewing the rest of the world through your myopic cultural lens. Where you assign a certain set of characteristics as determining a 'soldier' performing an 'act of war', the enemy does not and is using this rigid frame of reference against us. The enemy is working outside our defined norms of soldier and rules of war but the act is still closer to a definition of some sort of war versus a crime and is more appropriate to handle outside our civilian judicial system. We should not be so willing to grant these barbarians the rights and privileges accorded to citizens. Doing so would be a grave injustice to civilized people.

rest days... i love them and i hate them... anyone agree with me?

New research shows... that crossfit has been telling the truth for years haha

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19797693?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=2

Just wanted to give a shout out to everyone who took part in Operation Pull For Hope yesterday! It was a truly magnificent experience.

Barry Sears live feed was great! For all of those who missed it due to its 6AM price-tag on the West Coast, you missed a very informative lecture and an opportunity to harness the true power of the internet!

The nutrition seminar was definitely an eye opener. He didn't invent the wheel on nutrition, but he reminded us how there is a multitude of options to be successful. Especially, how inflammation applies to performance diet and longevity. Thanks to CrossFit and Dr. Barry Sears.

It is worth noting as well that KSM was waterboarded repeatedly, in order to gain actionable intelligence. What intel was gained is classified, but quite clearly this--in and of itself--would be enough to get all charges dismissed in a U.S. Court of Law, with respect to a U.S. citizen. The only reason Bill Ayers--accomplice to multiple counts of 1st degree murder--is free, was the FBI violated some minor procedural rules. He should be rotting in jail, or recently released.

In point of fact, however, the legal protections afforded to US citizens do NOT apply to citizens of other nations, the cretins and morally obtuse cowards at the Supreme Court notwithstanding.

As a U.S. citizen, KSM should be released on the basis of procedural violations. That would be political suicide for Obama, so what he is instead going to do is conduct a show trial. KSM will be convicted, again, but not prior to airing as much dirty laundry as possible, including top secret methods and sources.

This show trial will be of George Bush and Dick Cheney, who will be tried and convicted in absentia, and sentenced to historical condemnation and marginalization, to the very large extent made possible with a compliant media complex, and team of revisionist historians.

What we are seeing, quite literally, is the most effective means possible for Barack Hussein Obama to damage our global war against Islamic radical terrorism, short of open advocacy of the position of our enemies.

I will add that it is increasingly my conviction that the delay in making a decision--one way or the other--as far as Afghanistan, might literally be intended to see to what his extent his indifference and incompetence as Commander in Chief can damage the motivation and morale of our troops. There could conceivably come a point where the hard chargers decide they want to back down. He can then comply.

Propaganda has many uses. In this particular case, it is to minimize the threat of Islamic terror, while maximizing the negative perception of all Americans who are not on the side of our President.

Few of us want to face daily the TRUTH that the attacks of 9/11 did not come out of a vacuum. Nor did those in Fort Hood.

I had a longer post typed out, but my computer died as I was about to post. Argh.
Suffice it to say that this seems analogous to Hamdan v. Rumsfeld; there, the military commissions created by the Bush administration (without congressional backing) lacked the required protections of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions, and could not be used to try the defendant.
Along with a number of the high-profile cases dealing with "enemy combatants" to emerge in those years, this case - that of the current trials - raises a host of due process issues.
Personally, I would prefer that the defendants be tried in open court, subject to the protections of classified evidence already in place. Such trials have happened before, and they've been successful, highlighting the American commitment to justice even in the face of brutality.
However, in the face of strong belief that military commissions of some sort are the only way to handle these cases, I'd be comfortable allowing such, requiring adequate protection of due process, e.g., the inadmissibility of evidence obtained through coercion.
Barry wrote at #33: "KSM has already plead guilty. Is this not an inverse version of double jeopardy? Why try someone who has already plead?" Because we're a nation that cares about the reliability of admissions, if nothing else. I'm sure that with enough waterboarding, we could get him to admit to being an invisible pink unicorn and the second coming of Zoroaster as well.
Also, there is no such thing as an inversion of double jeopardy. First off, if the idea of double jeopardy applies, it would have to come in via the Fifth Amendment - which means conceding that KSM is entitled to constitutional protections, which I believe (though correct me if I'm wrong) you've argued against in the past.
The Fifth Amendment states in relevant part that "No person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb". The textual command is quite clear, and does not provide for an inverse. Also, it applies only to final judgments - not confessions.

Laura,

Very good point. I agree that the reason most people post their scaled workouts is to show their own personal accomplishments, not to compare themselves to other's times (yet). I know that's why my wife does it.

Barry at #51,

If "the legal protections afforded to US citizens do NOT apply to citizens of other nations, the cretins and morally obtuse cowards at the Supreme Court notwithstanding", then why did the Constitution repeatedly say "[n]o person", rather than "no citizen"?
Note that this construction ("no person") does NOT assume citizenship; art. I ss 2 and 3, discussing the requirements for representatives and senators, both state that "No person" shall hold the respective office without fulfilling the requisite period of citizenship. This separates the idea of citizenship from that of the person. The use of the same "No person" phrase in the Fifth Amendment echoes the same underlying assumption regarding citizenship: if required for the applicability of the provision, it will be explicitly referenced.

Waterboarding is torture. Fact. Oh, and this trial is hardly needed to reveal the evil anit-american policies of the prior administration.

If it walks like a duck.....

Barry, You should learn what double jeopardy actually means before you open your yap.

Clinton's 1998 bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan created bin Laden as a symbol, forged close relations between him and the Taliban, and led to a sharp increase in support, recruitment, and financing for Al Qaeda, which until then was virtually unknown. The next major contribution to the growth of Al Qaeda and the prominence of bin Laden was Bush's bombing of Afghanistan following September 11, undertaken without credible pretext as later quietly conceded. As a result, bin Laden's message spread among tens of millions of people, particularly the young and angry, around the world, reviewing the increase in global terror and the creation of "a whole new cadre of terrorists" enlisted in what they see as a "cosmic struggle between good and evil," a vision shared by bin Laden and Bush. As noted, the invasion of Iraq had the same effect.

Every use of force is another small victory for bin Laden, who s winning," whether he lives or dies. This assessment is widely shared by many analysts, including former heads of Israeli military intelligence and the General Security Services.

There is also a broad consensus on what the proper reaction to terrorism should be. It is two-pronged: directed at the terrorists themselves and at the reservoir of potential support. The appropriate response to terrorist crimes is police work, which has been successful worldwide. More important is the broad constituency the terrorists -- who see themselves as a vanguard -- seek to mobilize, including many who hate and fear them but nevertheless see them as fighting for a just cause. We can help the vanguard mobilize this reservoir of support by violence, or can address the "myriad grievances," many legitimate, that are "the root causes of modern Islamic militancy." That can significantly reduce the threat of terror, and should be undertaken independently of this goal.

Violence can succeed, as Americans know well from the conquest of the national territory. But at terrible cost. It can also provoke violence in response, and often does. Inciting terror is not the only illustration. Others are even more hazardous.

made up yesterday's workout

did 5 rounds of:
12 reps 95 pound push jerk
15 reps 85 pound row

10:56

80 air squats
50 sit ups
50 back extensions

Don't have time to read all of this, but it would seem to me that the AMERICAN Constitution applies to AMERICANS. The Egyptian "constitution", or whatever the equivalent is, would apply to Egyptians. Sharia would apply to Saudis, etc.

My point is that if someone has PLED GUILTY, why are we trying him again? He is PROUD of what he did. He didn't make some tepid wishy washy semi-confession after being waterboarded: he BRAGGED about it. What he did--conspire to murder, if possible, all the people working in both Twin Towers--was fully consistent with his morality.

We should have helped him get his 72 virgins years ago. I would sincerely hope that our commandoes out there are terminating these evil human beings with extreme prejudice, rather than put them through the farce the Obamaites have planned.

And for those who want military courts: that was the plan. Who changed it? Oh, that would be Obama, who has realized that Gitmo exists for a REASON, that the people there are TERRORISTS, and that there is NOTHING gained either by bringing them here, or by trying them as if they were something other than bloodthirsty savages that don't even abide by the code of Islam, much less any ordinary conception of decency.

These terrorists are all well educated in Western traditions, and most of them in Western Schools. They didn't attack us--they don't attack us--because they are lacking something, or because we did something. Our crime, very simply, is that we are different from them--we are the Other--and they hate us for our very success when they are supposed to have the perfect system.

This discussion will last four days. Expect both barrels, and no sympathy for weak minded moral equivalency.

"try him again" Barry? He hasn't been tried in the FIRST PLACE. You can't overthrow the Constitution because it suits your needs. Bush, Cheney and Wolfy did though

Have you been hitting the whiskey again?

Nick #52,

That's a strong post. Good points well presented.

Harold #57,

Sir, could you please direct me to sources that attest to the "broad consensus" on what the proper reaction to terrorism might be. I read, well, pretty much everything I can. NYT and WSJ, and everything in between. CNN and FOX, and everything in between. I have found no such consensus.

Could you, while you are at it, direct me to sources that report successful police work in responding to terrorist crimes? Sources that will confirm your statement that police work is the "appropriate response". Be careful not to cite anything about the IRA, Basque Separatists, Red Brigade, or PLA, all of which have quite successfully resisted police action quite nicely, thank you.

And if you have time, might you also toss out a source or two about the lack of pretext to attack Afghanistan post 9/11 when it was clear that OBL was based there. Seems to me the international "consensus" around that time was pretty much supportive of that move, and I don't recall reading or hearing any backtracking on that, quiet or otherwise. Indeed, the criticism that I've heard is mostly that the military actions in Afghanistan directed at the Taliban and AQ were dialed too far back too soon.

You see Harold, unless you set policy, or can speak directly for those who set policy, simply stating things like "the consensus" and "most appropriate" without some sort of context or support is simply to state your opinion. Valuable, of course, and worthy of inclusion in the discussion, but hardly conclusive.

So help me out. Show me what I've missed in my reading that there is a consensus on what the most appropriate response to terrorism is, and that it's been show to be effective. Change my opinion.

What this means is this.

We are a country of laws. We have no problem legally convicting child rapists killers, mass murders, major gang bangers, international drug cartel leaders and mafia kingpins as well as terrorists just like the one that tried to blow up the Trade Center the first time back in 1993. He's been in Federal prison for years now. Not a single solitary problem. Not one.

The ONLY... I REPEAT ONLY REASON that the Right is whining so about trials is because they know all the TORTURE that the Bush administration did will finally completely come out. And that's perfectly fine... it should come out. They acted like thugs and the fact that this new administration is being out front about it is a wonderful thing and a major reason why the rest of the world once again sees us as fair.

And make no ridiculous claims. There is no doubt. No doubt whatsoever that the government needs in no way any confessions gleaned through the Bush TORTURE and has tons of evidence on each defendant to convict them with the death penalty.

PLO, not PLA

Tom_tom #62:

OTHER Islamic terrorists that perpetrated crimes on US soil were tried in criminal courts? You sure about that? If so, what would be the difference with KSM?

Other than the whole torture thing and the evils of the past administration out in the open for all to see?

Spencer.. amazing with the Body Weight OHS!

#62, Tom tom Club, writes,

"The ONLY... I REPEAT ONLY REASON that the Right is whining so about trials is because they know all the TORTURE that the Bush administration did will finally completely come out."

Assuming you are correct that the defendant was in fact tortured, should he be set free? If so, why not just set him free now? If not, what is the purpose of the trial?

Hari , I know you didn't ask me, but. As a corollary, do you think it's ok to torture people. And if people are tortured while under the care of the US, should it all get swept under the rug?

I might chime in here on the 'police work is need to combat terrorism."

This is pretty much truth. Police work has a large scope however. Heck, according to the CIA:

The first tenet of the 4D strategy (Defeat,
Deny, Diminish and Defend) calls for
defeating terrorist organizations of global
reach through the direct or indirect use of
diplomatic, economic, information, law
enforcement, military, financial, intelligence,
and other instruments of power.

To me, that pretty much means more police work less war mongering.

yesterday's wod as RX'd

9:46

#67, Mr. Hand,

Assuming you define waterboarding as torture and assuming by "people" you mean terrorist suspects likely to have information relevant to preventing future terrorist acts, then my answer is the first part of your question is yes. My answer to the second part of your question is no, it should not "get swept under the rug."

Let us assume that in this instance the defendant is able to prove that he was tortured or that the government concedes the point. Do you believe the appropriate remedy for this constitutional violation is for the defendant to go free?

I has been my experience that people that do not consider waterboarding prisoners as torture, have an agenda that is inconsistent with being American.

God forbid you or your family are ever in a position, maybe travelling overseas, that you are tortured for information while under arrest.

Spencer, that is freakish. Thanks for sharing the video.

Your games performance was also amazing and I look forward to watching you compete in 2010.

I think you can win!

cheers
sevan

Just thought I'd stop by and say hey. I'm starting the WOD tomorrow. I'm very excited to start. I'm enlisting in the Army and going for Rangers, and was told these workouts will really help. The info on this site is incredible.

Thanks,

Charlie

Should have taken a rest day today but did "Magnum 45" instead:

45 double unders
45 cleans - 135#
45 ring dips
45 double unders

10:27 (PR I think, couldn't find my last time on this)

The last round of double unders was not fun. Couldn't move my legs after the cleans.

#71, Mr Hand, writes,

"I has been my experience that people that do not consider waterboarding prisoners as torture, have an agenda that is inconsistent with being American."

Is an ad hominem argument the best you can do?

#55

Waterboarding is not torture, it is pretend. Being burnt. To death, or jumping 100 stories, or being smashed is torture!

Wouldn't a "not guilty" verdict be interesting?

Bingo #61

Harold #57 won't be able to respond as those are not his words. He is plagerizing Noam Chomsky. http://www.chomsky.info/books/hegemony03.htm

Could it be Alice has resurfaced?

23 / M / 5'9" / 133lb

Did the PJ and L-pull-up WOD today, scaled to

3 rounds of
80lb PJ x15
10 tuck-sit pull-ups

19:43

I was going to do 4 rounds, but I started getting pain in my elbow during the pull-ups, so I decided to play it safe and stop.

I will repeat, now with #62 as direct evidence, that the point of conducting this trial, in a civilian court, in the Continental United States, has NOTHING to do with justice, and everything to do with efforts of the Obamaites to distract people from their patent incompetence and to stage a trial by mockery of George Bush, again. It got Obama elected once, why not twice?

Mr. Hand, Hari has you in a corner. Why don't you just admit that you favor releasing KSM because that's just the sort of guy you are. The logic is perfectly clear, and it's YOUR logic. Own it, or shut up.

It seems to me, pondering this, that the differences between soft leftist notions of justice--think muddle heads like Alan Alda--and those of people with common sense, is the following. Normal justice systems aim at accuracy. They want to convict those who should be convicted, and acquit those who should be acquitted. Since human beings are fallible, and prone to strong emotion, we put in place systems to help make this more likely. The goal is 100% accuracy with respect to placing people the correct category. Injustice is done BOTH by failing to convict the guilty, as well as by convicting the innocent. Both are injustices.

Soft Leftists, on the contary, aim solely at 100% accuracy with respect to never convicting anyone who is innocent. They will let 100 people free for no good reason, just to prevent one error. What they don't care about--because most of them live in nice neighborhoods--is that the 100 people they free go on to commit MORE CRIMES. The first crime was on the criminal. In my view the second and following are on the idiots who let them go, when they had good evidence they were guilty.

You see, in the fat, dumb and happy world of the soft leftist, people are basically always nice, and if they vary from this, it must be our fault. Thus, even actual criminals are not to blame for their choices. Everyone else is.

I have decided this is a good place for an experiment. I am going to stop posting for tonight, but tomorrow I am going to develop a winnowing mechanism. The simple fact is that leftists are morally incoherent. This is not always obvious to everyone, but it can be shown, which is the great advantage of this type of forum. I will repeat that it would be disappointing to learn that leftist posts were being deleted--unless pure vulgarity, which is frankly many of them--for the simple reason that this is where people can see just how shallow and empty their positions are. It is childs play, over time, to show this.

And I am constantly developing new tools, which is interesting to me. Mr. Hand is done, unless he (or she) is willing to defend a move to release KSM. We do still have Tom tom club, and whoever else might chime in, though, so that is encouraging. I could (and have) created my own blog, but I find working against resistance so much more useful than tranquility that there is no contest.

I need to map it out first, as a flow chart. I should be back mid-afternoon tomorrow.

#61...regarding Afganistan, it was the general consensus of the left, except for the barking moonbat crazy left, that Afganistan was the 'good' and 'just' war and it was Iraq that was without pretext. Either Harold is a member of the nutroots left or he's moving the goal posts.

Mr. Hand regarding post #71...I consider myself a patriot American and I have absolutely no issue whatsoever in waterboarding a highly suspect terrorist who our intelligence/military personnel believe has critical information related to terrorist activities. I'll happily take my chances while traveling abroad. Your speaking for yourself not for is 'consistent for being an American'.

Yes Barry the nutroots leftoids are morally incoherent at best and willfully immoral at worst. I don't argue with them to change their minds as you can't argue with someone who never reasoned into their position to begin with. I rebut to hopefully provide some clear reasoning to someone else who might not have thought through the issue or who may be leaning towards the leftist morally equivalent position but may not be totally bought in. Those are the ones I hope to reach.

11:05 as RX'd

Barry,

Apparently you won't see this until tomorrow, but when you do, what's your blog? I'd be interested to read it. If you're worried about the filter, feel free to shoot me an email.

Today I did;

3 rounds (AFAP)
-100 single skips
-30 KB swings (50#)
-30 pull ups

Time: 13:48.96

Well, I finished "The Golden Peril"--a Doc Savage novel--and figured I'd take a look at what changed. Phil G, your contributions are welcome. Like Bingo, Apolloswabbie, Goat, and a few others, you are well spoken.

Nick,

Here is my blog, such that it is: http://www.moderatesunited.blogspot.com/

Last post was March of last year.

I will create a new one, shortly, that has my essays in it. First, I want to finish my book. Since I'm only on something like page 16 or so, it will take some time. I do have some 1,500 pages of notes--roughly a third of which are copied from internet posts--but the task is to integrate them into larger narratives. That is my task at the moment: to reinvent what I have already invented in such a way that is it obvious, useful, and simple.

America, like Rome, will be defeated from within. The break down of the traditional family, ramped divorce, and a turning away from the Lord our God will be our undoing.

2 Chronicles 7:14-15:
"If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land."

-This means that those who call themselves Christians will need to repent and honor the Lord Jesus Christ. Then, and only then, will America be blessed by God.

The slogan, "God bless America" needs to be changed to, “America Bless God.” -By being obedient to His word.

Greg,

I'm afraid there's no answering that comment at all. It's jibbering nonsense, complete babble, foaming at the mouth lunacy.

If we substitute your word 'God' with Allah and 'Christians' for Islamists, your post wouldn't look out of place on a jihadist website.

Even if there was any sense in it, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the preceding comments.

bless you

John,

Are you sure about what you have written? The jihad's website would promote the killing of those who disagree with their understanding of God. Never would they proclaim to their own followers a message of repentance for the healing of their land.

I love my country, served honorably, and still serve. But I see, like many others, a disease that is crippling this great nation I have fought and bled for. That disease is liberalism and perversity; -a turning away from the God of the Bible.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."
-Proverbs 9:10

Peace

But Greg, your post has nothing to do with the preceding comments - it is just a gratuitous attempt to inject your belief system into a political debate.

btw, I'm not likening you to a jihadist. My point was that the strong religious language you used in that post displays similarities to extremist Muslim language.

Johnson,

Then our Founding Fathers were lunatics as well. All of them were religious, even Jefferson, who recognized a Creator a number of times in the Declaration of Independence.

Is this your version of tolerance, or do you want to argue that anti-religious bigotry constitutes a type of civic virtue? Is that what you BELIEVE?

Still working on the flow chart.

Johnson,

The similarities all end though with the removing of noses and breasts, the stonings, the airplane in the building thing, the truck bomb, the suicide bombings, the rioting and on and on and on when it comes to comparing Christians and Islamists.

Johnson,
You criticize Greg for posting off topic and you ignorantly try to compare Greg's statement to extremist Muslim language but you don't bother to address Greg's main point that cultural decadence as evidenced by break down and assult on traditional family and Christian religion will ultimately harm us as a country.

I don't have the time and space to be thorough on this, but I will submit a few observations.

Law is an outgrowth of morality. Morality is NOT a subset of the law. In a perfect society, with perfectly good people, there would be no need for laws at all. People would simply do what was contextually right, because they were wise.

In China it is perfectly legal to jail, torture, and kill dissidents. This does not make it right. Conversely, being a dissident is not immoral simply because it is against the law.

Since morality is logically anterior to law, then, we can see that law is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Specifically, law is potentially a means by which to counter the sense of resentment that occurs when one group feels another group is being treated differently. When law is used in this way, we call it justice. The definition of justice is punishing the guilty appropriately, and acquitting the innocent.

The legal system is a means by which to channel anger. Anger is the natural and necessary outflow of a non-ironic sense of the sacred, that there are certain behaviors which are simply beyond the pale. The legal system seeks to prevent the summary justice of the lynching tree--which provides a quick release from anger--because all of us understand, in our more sober moments, that we are capable of being wrong.

The task is not to subvert justice--to avoid punishing the guilty--but simply to make sure we get the right people.

We recognize in the legal system qualities of crimes. Murder is worse than rape, which is worse than theft, which is worse than jaywalking.

There are grades of murder as well, with premeditated murder being the worst.

For legal purposes, I am willing to accept that waterboarding is torture. Consider, however, the legal category of these criminals. If we are not to consider them soldiers, the only other logical category is that of spy. Patently, they are part of an organized conspiracy to commit mass murder for political ends. Their intent was to attack the economic and political apparatus of our nation, to damage us in precisely the manner consistent with a declared war.

The penalty for espionage is death. Clearly, by any rational standard, they deserve death. Waterboarding is short of that. If the death penalty is morally defensible--and I believe it clearly is--then so is waterboarding, particularly given the context.

So the objections are not foundationally moral, but legalistic.

Now, since we made the mistake of taking these people alive, it is reasonable to suppose that some sort of review of the available evidence is warranted, in a legal setting.

The plan had been to try them in military tribunals. They were taken on foreign battlefields by military forces. This alone should be sufficient evidence to make it clear that these are not civilians, to be treated as such.

We recognize different rules for war than for internal peacekeeping. Internally, an administrative apparatus is in place, peace is the norm, and the task of collecting data at a leisurely pace is quite manageable.

Externally, in situations overseas, where we are being shot at, killed, blown up, and often in tight, uncertain situations, the demand that the same sorts of rules for evidence be applied is farcical to the point of being latent tactical sabotage.

The idea of trying these men in military courts was therefore sound. The rules of evidence in place there are calibrated to include the fog of war. The rules of evidence in the civilian courts in New York City are not. Obama knew this.

As mentioned, the point of our legal system is to channel anger. It is to give wronged parties the sense that the crimes inflicted on them are being punished by the larger polity as a whole; that justice--the conviction and punishment of the guilty--is being done.

In assessing legal decisions, then, we must reconcile three factors: the moral impulse, expressed through anger; the need for consistency in our legal system; and the long term consequences of various policies.

As one example, I believe penalties for white collar crime should be greatly stiffened, to deter it in the future.

As another example, I believe the example of KNOWN terrorists being given propaganda forums, cushy jail cells, and the generous accolades of their fellow radicals sends the OPPOSITE of the message we want to send. It telegraphs pathetic weakness, moral imbecility, and a latent desire to cooperate with the radicals in our own destruction.

It tells our troops that they should stop risking their necks to arrest people who might just get let go by bureaucrats.

And Obama is trying to establish a legal precedent that foreign born criminals, captured overseas, can and should expect all the legal protections offered law abiding American citizens. This is contemptible, and indefensible on ANY level.

These guys are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, but may still be released. What we need to understand is that as gratifying as a sanctimonious advocacy of law over morality might be for some, the fact is that women and children will die violent deaths in the future--preventable deaths, to be clear--if these people are released.

And nothing is gained by trying these men in a civilian court. They are not civilians. They are not Americans. They did not commit their crimes on American soil, to the best of my understanding.

Holder and the moronic child who directs him can both kiss my a$$.

One other cultural comment. It is no accident that anti-heroes like Dirty Harry, and Charles Bronson, and later Mel Gibson of the Lethal Weapon series--or Steven Seagal, or take your pick--came into prominence in the 1970's. What you saw, following the inversion of tradition and associated common sense from the early 70's onwards, was increasing lawlessness. Where the intent previously had simply been convicting the guilty and releasing the innocent, there were now political factors in play in which criminals were handed MORE rights than they had had previously.

One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest got half our clinically insane put back on the street. The War on Poverty destroyed personal responsibility, and family integrity. It encouraged a pervasive sense of entitlement, that generalized to the culture as a whole created a situation in which people simply did not feel a sense of duty any more to anyone or anything.

With respect to this discussion, people lost the faith that the guilty would in fact be convicted. They longed for heroes with old fashioned moral codes, who would speak with guns where the laws failed.

This marked a decay into a sense of separation from--disenfranchisement from--the system.

Now, we reversed course, in many respects. The pervasive problems brought about by leftist policies were curbed through common sense policies initiated by moderates and conservatives.

But there remains a sense of fragility, brought out into the open from time to time by travesties like the civilian trial of KSM. The same sorts of febrile ideologues are still concocting the same witches brews of moral corruption and legal abuse that they did back then.

You see, when you reject common sense morality, all you have left is the law. It's all that stands between you and complete nihilism. But without the backing, the support, the enriching matrix of morality, you act in ways which are clumsy, and which cannot by definition reach to the roots of the purpose of the law, which is justice.

Leftists define justice as the output of the justice system. Hence, both the Chinese and Soviet systems were just. It is tautological.

Social justice, by extension, is the output of policies enacted by advocates of social justice. Typically this means giving people money and advantages they haven't earned, without regard to the moral and social consequences.

This is how you can continue to pursue, year after year after year, policies which have been discredited thoroughly in the real world.

Communism doesn't work, but it is still advocated.

Welfare doesn't eliminate systemic poverty.

Appeasement doesn't buy peace.

Rehabilitation programs do not reduce crime.

And tolerance as a virtue fosters bigotry. To be perfectly tolerant, you see, is to be silent. Since this doesn't sit well with leftists, they simply choose to hate people who don't think like them, then call it virtue.

Our social and cultural terrain couldn't be simpler, in many regards. There are two ends of the continuum: those who view the law as the determinant of morality, and by extension the State as the source of guidance; and those who view morality as the source of law, and individual consciences as the source of guidance, as reconciled through the processes of democratic self governance.

This trial shows quite clearly which side the Left is on. They could scarcely choose otherwise. They have killed the deep roots which make us all human, potentially, and what remains is a shallow husk, which for now has a shiny, glittering exterior, and is festooned with "hope" balloons. It won't last. It can't last. No edifice can endure without a base upon which to stand.

I think one can also differentiate the difference, in principle, between Good and Evil. Good people derive pleasure from the pleasure of others; evil people derive pleasure from inflicting pain.

And if you allow the outwardly religious trappings of these terrorists to drop away, what is revealed is naked evil. There was no plan in the attacks of 9/11. What they wanted, plain and simple, was to inflict pain on the United States, not because of anything we did, but because we were powerful and different from them.

Don't all weaklings on some level tend to resent the people who achieve the things they can't? Don't they make excuses for their failures? Rather than look in a mirror, don't they locate their failures outside of themselves?

Do you remember the excited cheers of the Arab refugees from the '48 War when they heard the news? Do you remember the excitement and glee from Osama Bin Laden?

Israel per capita invents something like a 100x as much as the entire Arab world. Do you think the lack of progress in some Arab nations might have something to do with a lack of innovation? Or that the wealth and success of Israel might have something to do with the people who live there, and their approach to life?

We all have a choice: we can choose dignity or we can choose blame. We can choose responsibility, or we can choose resentment. Both have consequences. And any policy or person that feeds resentment, or encourages people to feel like helpless victims, is feeding evil.

I see no ambiguity whatsoever in this.

First sentence I meant "define".

Barry,

You've put together a lot to shift through, so let me start near the beginning. As a law student, I come from a legal perspective; I think I see what you're trying to get at when you discuss the distinction between law and morality, but please follow me for a few moments.
"For legal purposes, I am willing to accept that waterboarding is torture."
Huzzah! Finally.

"The penalty for espionage is death. Clearly, by any rational standard, they deserve death. Waterboarding is short of that. If the death penalty is morally defensible--and I believe it clearly is--then so is waterboarding, particularly given the context."
You're mixing up your terms there. What they did was not espionage, which, under the Espionage Act of 1917, deals mostly with the passing of false information, and isn't - and shouldn't be - punishable by death (unless, perhaps, it rises to the level of treason). You seem to be talking about terrorism.
Under the PATRIOT Act, a person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act "dangerous to human life" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to:
(i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.
So, let's talk about terrorism and responses to terrorism.
You postulate a moral continuum, with death being worse than torture, and state that if death is a permissible punishment for terrorism, then so is torture. This assertion is problematic on several levels.
First, the waterboarding of KSM (and other terrorist suspects) was not punishment - it was done in order to facilitate interrogation. This removes that justification for your assertion as to the permissibility of what you concede to be torture. Or, even if you assert a mixed justification - that the torture was both for interrogatory and punishment purposes - then you're punishing someone before ascertaining guilt. I'm sure that you stand resolute in finding of guilt and your passing of the sentence, but some people still believe in that darn old canard: "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."
Second, there exists a peremptory norm against the use of torture. Such norms are universal and non-derogable.
Third, even if you deny the applicability of the norm against torture, the US has signed the Convention Against Torture, which states that "[n]o exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture." This convention was implemented as federal law under the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998.
I know that you want to separate the ideas of law and morality, but here, it seems that law has set down clear limits.

Barry,

You also write that "The plan had been to try them in military tribunals... The idea of trying these men in military courts was therefore sound. The rules of evidence in place there are calibrated to include the fog of war."
Please note that this was not the case. Rumsfeld v. Padilla featured an American citizen, arrested inside the US, and arguments by the government that the suspect could be held indefinitely, without access and without process. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld featured another American, this one taken in Afghanistan as an "illegal enemy combatant." Again, the government wanted to hold him indefinitely and without a defined process.
When you write that the plan had been to try them in military tribunals, I assume that you're thinking of the commissions set up to try Gitmo detainees. These same commissions were not authorized by the "laws of war" or by statute, and so calling them "military tribunals" seems inaccurate. In addition, one branch of government controlled all aspects of the commissions: this included both rules of evidence (which, as you point out, must be somewhat more flexible to accommodate for the fog of war) and the possibility of appeal or review (in other words, if you were found guilty, they didn't have to let you go, no matter how flimsy the "trial" was). In addition to not operating under the rules of courts-martial, there were serious concerns regarding the neutrality of the tribunals.

Barry,

I'm sure you'll fire back at me with your differentiation between "those who view the law as the determinant of morality" and "those who view morality as the source of law", and call me a Communist for "defin[ing] justice as the output of the justice system". Let me respond by saying that your morality is, quite obviously, not the same as mine. Mine is different than my girlfriend's. Yours is likely different than your neighbor's. While there are common areas of widespread agreement - let the innocent go free, punish the guilty, put the bankers to the wall - the idea of law in America (or at least my conception thereof, though I think it's one fairly widely shared) is that it acts as a channel through which democratic processes operate to forge an agreement upon the procedures and safeguards through which the collective morality is applied. "[I]ndividual consciences" should indeed be a guiding source for individual behaviors, but the output of reconciling of these consciences through democratic self governance is law.

Should KSM be put to death, for his role in the murder of some 3,000 Americans, a role he freely admits and is proud of?

Please speak as a human being, and not as a lawyer.

Of course, if you want to privilege the law over justice, you will merely support my contentions.

To be clear, this course of action runs a very real risk he will be freed.

If he is freed, will you describe that as justice?

As far as the issue of espionage, self evidently I expect casuistry: it is your future trade.

Let me offer an example: in the Battle of the Bulge, German soldiers--some of whom had attended American universities--infiltrated our lines in American uniforms, with the intent to sow confusion and destruction. They were to blow things up, shoot people, and generally interfere with the development of an effective American counter-attack.

These Germans were dressed as Americans, were explicitly bent on murder and mayhem, and were thus very clearly violating the rules of war, which presume the use of identification.

I would submit Al Quedists are no different. They conduct themselves as civilians, they dress as civilians, yet they are directed by men in other nations to carry out acts of war against the United States.

They are combatants, who are willfully attempting to deceive us as to their intentions. They are not civilians--most of them received military training of the best sort available--they are not regular soldiers, and deception and mass murder are their tools and goals.

Why treat them as anything but spies? If they aren't spies, what are they? Self evidently, sabotage is a part of the role of undercover agents.

Historically, such people were shot on the spot.

The Left is pleased that KSM will be tried in civilian court, but at the same time it does not want any possibility that this man will be set free. No one supporting the Obama Administration's decision has come out and said KSM should ever see the light of day. So what is this really about?

It is about rebuking the Bush Administration's decisions, whatever they were. Even if they produced the desired outcome (e.g., kept KSM imprissoned) the perception is that they got there by the wrong path. And even if Obama strives to do exactly the same things Bush did (what exactly has he done differently?) the Left's perception is that Obama is taking the high road.

The cognetive dissonance is stark: Give KSM a "fair" trial, just don't let him get off. Keeping him locked in Gitmo has done exactly this, but that's wrong. Why? Because that's what Bush did, and therefore, it must be wrong.

The real problem is that Obama cannot fullfill his promise to close Gitmo. So he throws this bone to the Left, and he does so at the risk that KSM will in fact go free.

Obama has now been president longer than Bush was on 9-11. It is time for Obama to start taking responsibility.

Post in the hopper.

Yes, KSM should be punished. Does that mean he should be executed? I don't know; I feel like the idea of locking him away for the rest of his natural life, plus fifty years or so, might adequately fulfill the need for punishment. My morality makes me willing to accept the law of the jurisdiction and the sentence of the neutral judge, since I’m confident that these will fall within the range of punishment I feel appropriate. Morality does not strictly require death, Barry, and pretending that it does is specious.
You say that there is a real risk he'll be freed through being put on trial.
First, that's simply not true. The government wins these trials, and has done so in the past. How is Timothy McVeigh doing today? Jose Padilla? The many other successful prosecutions of terrorist acts in American courts? There's a lot of evidence, even beyond that extracted under torture. Second, in the very unlikely event that he is let off on the charges at hand, I'm certain that we'll be able to get him on something else. He's done enough that there is a myriad of offenses on which to try him, seriatim if need be. That's how we got Al Capone, remember? Third, we have set up the exclusionary rules of which you complain to deter violations of rights - like the inalienable right not to be tortured for information, which I discussed above. Really, if KSM is so gleefully telling us that he did it, even now, we'll be able to convict him without having to worry about any evidence we might have lost due to our unlawful actions in the past.
There's no real worry about the outcome here, Barry. You'll get to have your vengeance, and we'll all be glad that someone who did reprehensible things is facing the music. “So what is this really about”, asks Hari. It’s about upholding the ideals of law, even in tough times. When did sticking to our founding principles in times of adversity fall out of fashion?
As far as the issue of you maligning lawyers, self evidently I expect you to shove it. You incorrectly used a term with a specific meaning to facilitate your argument in an important context. I corrected you, giving the specific definition of the word you used, and offering an alternative. Live with it.
The Germans you cite violated the laws of war. So have al Qaeda operatives engaged in the crimes at issue here. Historically, these people would be subject to trial by military commission, not shot on the spot. See Ex parte Quirin. Since then, however, we've signed the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The Fourth Geneva Convention, Art. 3, applies to “[p]ersons taking no active part in the hostilities”, which includes a temporal element (“taking no active part” *now*). These persons are entitled to a “regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” GCIV, Art., 3(1)(d).
So we’ve signed a binding international treaty on the topic, forcing us to afford even persons in their position a “regularly constituted court”. The military commissions you advocate fail this requirement. The treaties we sign bind us. This is basic morality. Morality, in this case, requires us to follow the law we’ve made. Thus, following the law flows from morality.

Hm. Post doesn't seem to be going through. Let me try breaking it up.

Yes, KSM should be punished. Does that mean he should be executed? I don't know; I feel like the idea of locking him away for the rest of his natural life, plus fifty years or so, might adequately fulfill the need for punishment. My morality makes me willing to accept the law of the jurisdiction and the sentence of the neutral judge, since I’m confident that these will fall within the range of punishment I feel appropriate. Morality does not strictly require death, Barry, and pretending that it does is specious.
You say that there is a real risk he'll be freed through being put on trial.
First, that's simply not true. The government wins these trials, and has done so in the past. How is Timothy McVeigh doing today? Jose Padilla? The many other successful prosecutions of terrorist acts in American courts? There's a lot of evidence, even beyond that extracted under torture. Second, in the very unlikely event that he is let off on the charges at hand, I'm certain that we'll be able to get him on something else. He's done enough that there is a myriad of offenses on which to try him, seriatim if need be. That's how we got Al Capone, remember? Third, we have set up the exclusionary rules of which you complain to deter violations of rights - like the inalienable right not to be tortured for information, which I discussed above. Really, if KSM is so gleefully telling us that he did it, even now, we'll be able to convict him without having to worry about any evidence we might have lost due to our unlawful actions in the past.
There's no real worry about the outcome here, Barry. You'll get to have your vengeance, and we'll all be glad that someone who did reprehensible things is facing the music. “So what is this really about”, asks Hari. It’s about upholding the ideals of law, even in tough times. When did sticking to our founding principles in times of adversity fall out of fashion?

Part deux.

As far as the issue of you maligning lawyers, self evidently I expect you to shove it. You incorrectly used a term with a specific meaning to facilitate your argument in an important context. I corrected you, giving the specific definition of the word you used, and offering an alternative. Live with it.
The Germans you cite violated the laws of war. So have al Qaeda operatives engaged in the crimes at issue here. Historically, these people would be subject to trial by military commission, not shot on the spot. See Ex parte Quirin. Since then, however, we've signed the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The Fourth Geneva Convention, Art. 3, applies to “[p]ersons taking no active part in the hostilities”, which includes a temporal element (“taking no active part” *now*). These persons are entitled to a “regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” GCIV, Art., 3(1)(d).
So we’ve signed a binding international treaty on the topic, forcing us to afford even persons in their position a “regularly constituted court”. The military commissions you advocate fail this requirement. The treaties we sign bind us. This is basic morality. Morality, in this case, requires us to follow the law we’ve made. Thus, following the law flows from morality.

#107, Rick, writes,

"You say that there is a real risk he'll be freed through being put on trial.
First, that's simply not true. The government wins these trials, and has done so in the past. How is Timothy McVeigh doing today? Jose Padilla? The many other successful prosecutions of terrorist acts in American courts?"

It is clear that you don't understand the definition of the word "risk" which in this context is synonymous with "non zero probability" as in "there is a non zero probability" that he will be freed (e.g. O.J. Simpson et al). If there is not the case (i.e., if there is a 100% probability he will be convicted) then his trial is meaningless, exalting form over substance. Is that what you mean by "upholding the ideals of law, even in tough times."

It seems that you are only willing to uphold ideals when you are certain of the outcome, as you are in this instance. In other words, you are unwilling to accept any adverse consequences of your idealism.

So I ask you directly: (1) If the attorney general told you that he could not guarantee that the defendant will not go free, would you still be in favor of this trial in a civilian court? (2) If the attorney general told you that a military tribunal would be more likely to result in a conviction and that such a tribunal would be consistent with the law, would you still choose a trial in federal court?

#107, Rick, writes,

"You say that there is a real risk he'll be freed through being put on trial.
First, that's simply not true. The government wins these trials, and has done so in the past. How is Timothy McVeigh doing today? Jose Padilla? The many other successful prosecutions of terrorist acts in American courts?"

It is clear that you don't understand the definition of the word "risk" which in this context is synonymous with "non zero probability" as in "there is a non zero probability" that he will be freed (e.g. O.J. Simpson et al). If this is not the case (i.e., if there is a 100% probability he will be convicted) then his trial is meaningless, exalting form over substance. Is that what you mean by "upholding the ideals of law, even in tough times."

It seems that you are only willing to uphold ideals when you are certain of the outcome, as you are in this instance. In other words, you are unwilling to accept any adverse consequences of your idealism.

So I ask you directly: (1) If the attorney general told you that he could not guarantee that the defendant will not go free, would you still be in favor of this trial in a civilian court? (2) If the attorney general told you that a military tribunal would be more likely to result in a conviction and that such a tribunal would be consistent with the law, would you still choose a trial in federal court?

Hari,

It's clear that you didn't read closely. I was responding to the idea of there being "real" risk, not "non-zero probability". And no, holding a trial when conviction is almost certain is not the exaltation of form over substance: the form of the trial itself has independent value in showing that we do care about the notions of due process, allowing the making one's case to a neutral finder of fact, the protections being accorded to the defendant, etc.
Also, I wasn't advocating that we only hold trials when certain of the outcome. That's a strawman argument - I said that we could be almost certain of the outcome in this instance, . If Holder called me and said we couldn't be certain of obtaining a conviction in civilian court, well, I'd suggest that we take our chances nonetheless, seeing value in trying him only as a criminal, rather than as a political force. However, as I made clear above, "I'd be comfortable allowing [military commissions], requiring adequate protection of due process, e.g., the inadmissibility of evidence obtained through coercion" - that is, meeting the requirements of the law. The military commissions originally set up for this purpose failed that requirement, which is the reason I objected to their use. If we could set up a tribunal that adequately protected the interests involved, which Congress has the ability to do, then while I personally would still choose a federal court, I would be fine with trying him in such a commission. Please note that the “regularly constituted court[s]” I cite under the Fourth Geneva Convention include military commissions "affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

Hari and Barry,

Why can't you two just get to your real point and stop dancing around it.

You are really scared that these guys will be convicted and in the court of public opinion it will make President O'Bama look good. A public and political bright spot on his resume. Heaven forbid.

What also may happen, and you know this, is that some of the immoral and illegal practices that were put into play during the Cheney/Bush presidency will be dragged out in the light and further tarnish your candidates image and legacy.

These guys are not going to be freed, and no amount of right wing jabbering is going to change that.

Carole McMasters,

If the president's objective is to focus what you believe to be "immoral and illegal practices that were put into play" during the previous administration (precisely which of these practices has President Obama since reversed?) then he should do so directly, without putting the country at risk that the defendant will go free.

To assert that the defendant cannot possibly go free is to assert that his trial will not be fair; that it is simply for show.

Is the president's objective to put the defendant on trial or to put the previous administration on trail? If it is the latter, then I suggest there are better legal ways to accomplish this objective, ones that would not require ussng the criminal courts as a political venue.

Barry,

you complain regularly on these page that 'leftists' and 'communists' are generally stupid & ill educated and too lazy to site examples and facts to support their case.

It would appear that Nick above is neither stupid nor lazy. He has in fact taken the patience to wade through significant quantities of your meandering thoughts and offered succinct and compelling rebuttals.

Your response was to walk away from the rebuttals completely, insult his profession and redirect the argument directly to your own preference, while including a scarcely relevant historical example.

will you address Nick's questions or can we all agree that you have neither the reason nor the intellect to support your argument?

Nick,
The various articles of the Geneva Convention apply to citizens of the signatories of the Geneva Convention not to just anybody in general. Al Qaeda agents are outside this jurisdiction as they are not operating on official capacity of any government Geneva signatory or not at least admittedly. Al Qaeda agents thus have no claim to the rights and privileges stipulated in the Geneva Convention. It would fully be within our rights to shoot them on the spot, hold them at a remote detention facility as long as we deemed necessary or hold them then execute them if we so choose. The options are solely ours and given the mass murder committed at their direction execution would be appropriate justice and totally within acceptable moral bounds. Now whether this or that person agrees with execution or detention is their opinion and if enough agree then that opinion can guide the actions of our politicians. From the national opinion polls I've seen regarding this subject directly and about the political character of the country in general I believe Obama's actions to try this in our domestic courts and shut down Guantanamo are not politically popular and while satisfying the hard left will create a political problem for him and his supporters.

I personally believe this is totally inappropriate for our domestic criminal courts; I think it is just another indication of our cultural decadence and basic unseriousness about a grave and dangerous matter.

I for one have no interest in seeing any of our or our ally's cities taken out by a nuclear strike, but this type of intellectual and moral weakness and frivolity is taking us there.

The only reason Al Qaeda didn't use a nuclear device is because they didn't have access to it. Obama's actions in national security and foreign policy are setting the stage for this to change.

Phil,

You suggest that the articles of the Geneva Convention do not apply in the case of detainees in the War on Terror. This argument was explicitly considered in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006). (Sorry, I can't give you the pin cite - I'm looking at it on the Supreme Court website, and they don't use the reporters' pagination. It's pages 62-69 of the opinion, though.) Even if GCIV doesn't fully apply due to the non-party status of one group to the conflict, points out Justice Stevens, Common Article 3 "affords some minimal protection, falling short of full protection under the Conventions, to individuals associated with neither a signatory nor even a nonsignatory 'Power' who are involved in a conflict 'in the territory of' a signatory", which the Taliban was.
At FN 63 of Hamdan:
See also GCIV Commentary 51 (“[N]obody in enemy hands can be outside the law”); U. S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, Dept. of the Army, Law of War Handbook 144 (2004) (Common Article 3 “serves as a ‘minimum yardstick of protection in all conflicts, not just internal armed conflicts’ ” (quoting Nicaragua v. United States, 1986 I. C. J. 14, ¶218, 25 I. L. M. 1023)).
"Common Article 3, then, is applicable here and, as indicated above, REQUIRES that Hamdan be tried by A 'REGULARLY CONSTITUTED COURT affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.'" Hamdan, 548 U.S. at pp 69 (emphasis added).

And in case it's still not clear, I understand the idea of a "regularly constituted court" required by the Geneva Conventions to include civilian courts, courts-martial, and even military commissions established under executive direction with the proper support of Congress and affording suspects "the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

Nick,

Thank you for fighting the good fight.

I know many see 'weakness' in the moral standards others seek to apply in a fight against terrorism. But really, it's strength. Belief in a set of values. Order. Civilised behaviour. Without such principles, for what do you fight?

That's apart from my strongly held view that it's simply bone-headed to think that terrorism can be defeated through an erosion of procedures for suspects. Quite the opposite in fact. Look at the shot in the arm that internment gave the IRA in the 70s. And the European Court Of Human Rights held that sensory deprivation, stress positions etc. amounted to torture. Similar tactics will radicalise any population on which there tactics are used. Terrorists aren't born. They become terrorists because of circumstance. It's an evil choice. But if you're serious about defeating it, you have to recognise this fact and strategise accordingly.

Anyone who doesn't think water-boarding is torture - get a friend to try it on you. Read 'The Torture Memos' by a professor of law from King's College London for a full description of how it was used.

Peace.

It really boils down to whether you view terrorism as a form of war, different from uniformed agents of a Westphalian country or simply an act of crime.

Given the unusual nature and challenge that terrorism - particularly the radical Muslim form - poses, I don't have a problem with combating it with a combination of police, military and intelligence assets. It will probably take everything we have.

It just makes no logical sense at all to pluck a foreign agent from a country that he's not even a citizen from that has conspired to commit mass murder on our soil who's part of an organization that is committed to doing more of the same and try them in a civilian justice system designed to handle normally defined crimes by U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. There many good arguments why. Those who believe this should be handled as a crime and extend the full rights and privileges of a U.S. citizen hold this belief with the fervor of a religious conviction. You can site all the wrong headed legal decisions you like, it still is not a reasonable position and presents a lot more practical problems that it solves.

I guess the most important thing for many of you is that we 'feel' good about our actions, that we maintain some sort of perfect ideal versus taking the hard and sometimes dirty action required to protect our wonderful republic against evil people that do not and no intention of playing by any accepted civilized rules.

J1,
You capture perfectly the liberal canard of the terrorist as a victim - they wouldn't be terrorists if we were nicer and provided them milk and cookies when they were kids. Good luck with that fantasy because reality will kick its ass.

I do actually have a life. In point of fact, I've already prerefuted Nick, and he is simply too dogmatically devoted to his position to see it.

Here is the simple fact: Nick has never claimed KSM is innocent, because he isn't. Neither are the other sadistic sociopaths we defiled American soil with. This is not the question. The question is: have we checked "legal process" off the list. The task is not to determine guilt. We know that.

The task is not to adhere to the laws governing American citizens. It is to take a narrow and unnecessary--legal precedent making, to be clear--position with respect to the laws governing religiously motivated serial killers.

This prececedent--as you've argued well, thank you Nick--is that protecting the US doesn't matter. Honoring the victims of the terror doesn't matter. Punishing the guilty is secondary. What is PRIMARY is that we maintain the facade that we desire JUSTICE and not service adherence to the oracular views of the sacred keepers of the legal flame.

I have already refuted this bass-ackward thinking above. It leads, necessarily, to the claim that what is primary is the law, and not the underlying source of the law. We are not trying to make sure we got the right people. We are performing a ritual which--in its denigration of actual morality--has eliminated the the actual purpose of the legal system.

Justice is the product of the justice system. This is what Nick is arguing. As an aspiring attorney, we should remember this is why many of us hold lawyers in contempt, although not all of them deserve it. Just some of them. That is a moral claim, not a legal one. Some of us still possess the capacity to do that, and feel no shame in so doing.

To be clear, Nick has validated my claim that the necessary conclusion of his position is that, yes, releasing KSM would be "Justice" in the way he defines it. Justice is what happens when you push "run" on the Justice Machine. It emerges as sausage at the other end, and whether it is palatable or not is a matter of principled indifference to him.

We're not going to get KSM for income tax evasion. He isn't an American citizen. He is an undercover agent for a non-governmental group that aims to kill as many Americans and other Westerners as possible. Released, he will disappear, and we may never see him again, although we can be sure he will go back to killing people.

You think about the torture of a man to prevent deaths. He deserves death, so I feel no moral qualms about this.

What I think about are the little boys and girls whose father, mother, or both were killed on 9/11, crying in their beds.

You show, through your emotional indifference, that you care less about this than about the rights of a mass murderer.

This is the opposite of justice in every possible universe except the Alice in Wonderland upside down one of moral relativism.

You see, if you reject morality, then all you have left is the law, and conformity. You need to be told what to do.

Please don't try any more to justify your position on principle. Your principle is that process trumps principle. That is unambiguous, and to claim otherwise will simply be to continue to either obfuscate or embarass yourself.

#120 should read serviLe adherence.

Barry,
Thank you for fighting the GOOD fight!

Nick,
While your reading of the final conclusion of Ramdan v. Rumsfeld may be technically correct there's more context to the story.

First of all it should be pointed out that Roberts recused himself which would have likely provided a deciding vote for a different decision likely based on the available dissents that the Supreme Court should not be involved in this. There was also pointed dissent by three justices regarding the applicability of the Geneva Convention to an 'unregular' combatant.

The final ruling was not that Ramdan must be prosicuted in a civil court but rather that he must be prosicuted in an established court which could include a military tribunal or commission that provided court like protections.

Now the final kicker is that Ramban's case was ultimately dismissed on a fine legal technicality around the language, "unlawful enemy combatant" vs. "enemy combatant" and question of jurisdiction.

To Barry's question - regarding the people that were murdered, those who died in the act of service to this country in fighting those responsible for the mass murder and the families of those who've died - was justice served in the broad context of justice or was a legal technicality simply resolved?

Of course the unintended consequences of these decisions by the Obama administration will result in fewer detainies in the future and thus less intelligence to protect lives because more of these scum will simply be summarily dispatched (nice way of saying killed) in the course of action. So the tender sensibilities that you would protect would not ultimately be available for protection as they'll likely be dead.

The ultimate power that citizens of democratic societies cede to the state is the power to restrict an individual's liberty by various means up to and including causing his or her death. Because the state, like any human organization, is fallible, democratic societies have developed various processes and controls to reduce the possibility of error when executing (no pun intended) this ultimate power. For the purposes of this discussion, let's focus on two such processes/controls that exist in the US: criminal trials and declarations of war. The former generally determines whether or not the state can apply its ultimate power on an individual while the latter determines whether or not the state can apply it on an entire group. For me the key problem here is that we've effectively (if not formally) declared war on a group ("terrorists") that has no easily identifiable criteria for membership like "red coat" was in 1776 or "German" was in WWII. As a result, someone somewhere needs to make individual decisions about whether a person is part of a group subject to a declaration of war or not. Who should that someone be? What process will he or she use? What criteria will he or she consider or not consider? What kind of controls will exist to minimize the possibility of error? What happens when a mistake is made? There is clearly a lot of scope for debate on these questions and there are no easy answers. From my own perspective, I would hope that the US is extremely cautious when deciding whether or not to restrict an individual's liberty given its long history of taking individual liberty seriously and I think that criminal trials or their approximate equivalents are a pretty good place to start.

Phil,

If you read my post at #118, I've already pointed out that "regularly constituted court[s]" include "civilian courts, courts-martial, and even [certain] military commissions". Throughout this discussion, I've made clear that while I personally would prefer prosecution in civilian courts, I am willing to accept any of those alternatives provided they afford the requisite minimal protections. I don't know how I can be clearer on that point.
Had Justice Roberts not recused himself, I doubt that the case would have come out differently. The ruling was 5-3. 3 + 1 = 4 (four Supreme Court justices! Ah, ah, ah). That is not enough for a majority opinion. As such, it is unlikely that Roberts would have provided a deciding vote. See also Boumediene v. Bush (splitting the Justices' vote along similar lines, with C.J. Roberts in the minority).
The dissents were indeed pointed, and may in the future be involved in changing the law. For the moment, however, the Court's plurality opinion is precedential, and will continue to be the law unless the issue is revisited at some future point. If that happens, we can ride this whole whirly-gig again, and if the issue comes up for consideration, I'm sure that the issue will be addressed at length in amicus briefs, and that is a good thing.
In the midst of Barry's sensationalism, he twists the meanings of justice and morality. I'm not quite sure how affording minimal due process protections to suspects across the board, rather than shooting them in the head in a small subterranean dungeon is causing little children to cry in bed; to me it seems like the opposite should be true. Bloodthirsty tykes, I guess.
As to the question in your paragraph that starts out "To Barry's question -", I'm not quite sure what you're asking. If you're asking whether the service given and sacrifices made served the broader sense of justice, then I agree that they did. An act of great injustice occurred; people have given their lives seeking to address this injustice and punish those responsible. This is a good thing, we're all just disagreeing on the best way to do it.
When you say that Ramdan's case was ultimately dismissed on legal technicalities, I think you're being unclear. New charges were laid against him in 2007 under the Military Commissions Act of 2006. While the Act does present some Suspension Clause issues, looking at Hamdan himself, Capt. Keith Allred, acting as a military judge, ruled that Hamdan was an "illegal enemy combatant", who could be tried by a military commission. He was found guilty by a military jury. He was sentenced to five years. He was deported to Yemen, his home country.
Isn't it great how things just work, even under regularly constituted courts?

Phil and Barry,

The two of you seem to agree that we should be able to kill suspected terrorists on the spot. (Barry: "Why treat them as anything but spies? ... Historically, such people were shot on the spot." Phil, you seem to agree with Barry generally.)

Phil, you write that the decision to try these men in civilian courts will lead to them being summarily dispatched in the field. If both of you seem to support this idea, then shouldn't you be celebrating the administration's decision?

Phil G #120 you say that I "capture perfectly the liberal canard of the terrorist as a victim - they wouldn't be terrorists if we were nicer and provided them milk and cookies when they were kids. Good luck with that fantasy because reality will kick its ass."

1. I am not portraying terrorists as victims. I expressly said that terrorists have made an evil choice. I think you're the one not understanding reality, as you seem to think that terrorism spontaneously erupts in certain parts of the globe and has nothing to do with underlying injustices - perceived or real. You don't have to agree with a terrorist to better understand a terrorist. Growing up about how terrorism comes about would be a significant step in the right direction for many commenting on this and other related topics. To be serious about ending any terrorist campaign, a first step is to recognise that the underlying grievances matter. This is certainly the view of the experts who produced the paper "How Terrorism Ends" in May 1999 which you can Google. There are other papers out there saying the same thing. Sorry that this is inconvenient to your macho posturing.

2. I don't think all terrorists are inveterate evil-doers from birth (although some are). If you do, we have a difference of opinion. Talking about giving them "milk and cookies" isn't particularly adding to my understanding or strengthening your argument (if you're in fact making one). I gave a concrete and recognised example of a government "getting tough" with terrorists (the UK policy in the 1970s) where imposing internment without trial directly resulted in a large recruitement of young men and women by Republican terror groups. There are other examples of the radicalisation of a population by the imposition of harsh counter-terrorist measures. You don't rebut this with anything other than a broad contention that I'm some sort of liberal idiot, who is living in a fantasy world and doesn't understand reality. Got anything more factual to back that up?

3. It's easy to "talk tough" about terrorism. Who doesn't think it's evil? Who wants to countenance an evil-doer walking free? Who thinks they don't have a choice and could go about whatever it is they're trying to do in a different manner? Who wants to worry about a terror suspect's rights, when we either believe or know they've committed mass murder? The difficulties arise when you get past the anger and you want to actually defeat terror. Obama has taken a step in moving to close Gitmo which is significant, dramatic and constructive. Moving trials to mainland USA is part of that strategy. I'm not a US citzen, but I would welcome my government stepping in and accepting Gitmo inmates where no one else will accept them, if they've been tried and not convicted. That's not to say I think it's risk free, or that they're all innocent. But freedom will be protected not by closed trials, torture and extraordinary rendition, but by taking hard decisions, rising above the mire of anger and abuse and sticking to principle even when sorely tested.

Peace.

Peace.

At #127, I wrote that "people have given their lives seeking to address this injustice and punish those responsible. This is a good thing". Pardon my poor phrasing there - I meant to express my admiration for the strength of character and conviction expressed in making those sacrifices.

Can anyone on the Left side of this argument explain why a military tribunal would be inadequate (i.e., that a civilian trial is necessary)?

Can anyone on the Right side of this argument explain why a military tribunal is inappropriate (i.e. that we should simply leave KSM locked up indefinitely)?

As I am reading the comments, the debate is actually not whether but where KSM should be tried.

Hari,
I consider myself center/right and I'm fine with a military tribunal, I'm not fine with a civilian court trial from many practical and national security reasons that have been pointed out.

Nick,
Nice twisting of my points. I won't bother replying any longer as you and I have both made our cases and further discussion seems to be a waste of time.

I do agree with you that ultimately it will be a political decision that probably has quite of bit of twists and turns left in the debate and decisions.

From what's coming out of Washington it appears that Holder is taking a bit of heat from congressional hearings on both the Ft. Hood murders and the KSM trial decision. This will turn into a very hot potato that might burn quite a few democrats in the coming elections.

Hari,

I'm fine with military tribunals. My argument is that if idiotic policies force a decision between summary execution and the probable release of future murderers, I would favor the former.

Nick,

Here is a lesson in syntax. My point was that I predicted your response would take the form: "Snartblat, etc. etc." Your response was "Snartblat, but I never say snartblat. That is an utter lie, and misunderstanding of my position."

Translated, I predicted legalism, and you provided, legalism. I thought that you might achieve a moment of clarity and declare that "process IS my principle". It is, after all. It's what you and your fellow travellers consider to what is "American" about America. We free guilty people, then brag about it. Other nations might consider that claim more dubious, your own enthusiasm nowwithstanding.

Yet, as I pondered this today, I see part of the roots of anti-Americanism. You see, if LAW is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, it explains why putting leashes on child molesters and parading them around naked is far, far worse than torturing them in a dungeon then impaling them on meat hooks, both of which happened at Abu Ghraib. One was illegal, and one was legal. Saddam Hussein made the laws, and was therefore within his legal rights to chop up suspected dissdents and send their bodies to their families in postal bags leaking blood. He was the law. So the Left had something very close to nothing to say about it.

But OUR Abu Ghraib was front page news for six months, even those responsible had already been removed from there, and were not acting according to official policy.

So you have this perceptual filter in which NO atrocities of other nations--if committed by the government--matter (you will an occasional exception like Sudan; the key caveat there is that NO national security interests be in play). The concentration camps in China don't matter. The torture chambers in Iran don't matter. The pervasive abuse of Arab women doesn't matter.

What matters is OUR law, and our SLIGHTEST infraction is for that reason WORSE than the most horrific abuse by any other nation.

Since we are only better in our protections of human rights than any other major power in human history, and not perfect, there is always something to condemn.

Let's continue this analysis by returning to the general point of today's discussion.

A man kills another man so he can steal his wife in Saudi Arabia. The case is heard in a court headed by a local Sheikh, and the man is convicted and beheaded. Only a couple witnesses are called, there is no jury, and no rules of evidence, other than the effort at impartial justice on the part of the Sheikh. Yet, justice is done. They have not followed our process, and an innocent man could have been found guilty. But that hasn't happened.

Let us run this analysis in America. Let's say a man decides he wants to work to overthrow the goverment of the United States, kill 10 million people, and run the rest through reeducation camps. He and his people, of course, will be in charge.

Towards this end, he and another man--let's call him "Jeff Jones"--gather together a group of people to plan and commit terrorist acts. They build bombs, most of which are used to blow up property, but some of which they intend to kill people. They shoot cops during bank robberies.

After many years, a primary suspect is caught. Let's call him "Billy Ayers". He is guilty as hell. EVeryone knows this. BUT the FBI surveilled him without a warrant. Shame, shame.

His words on his release? "Guilty as hell. Free as a bird!!! America's a great country." This from someone who would later say and stick to the contention that "America makes me want to puke".

In fact, here was what I understand to have been the first statement of the Weather Underground: "Hello. I'm going to read a declaration of war. Within the next 14 days we will attack a symbol of American justice."
- Former Underground Member Bernardine Dohrn

Current wife of Bill Ayers. Since Barack Obama and Billy boy were friends, presumably he is friends with Bernardine as well. Unofficially, of course.

To be clear, Bill Ayers is innocent twice. First, he was fighting the Power (prior to using the Power to get out of jail; an option not available to many of his less well-off fellow radicals, especially Black Panthers); second, he was acquitted. That must mean he was innocent, right?

Now, let's layer these two narratives. What we see is that Leftists recognize the category of victim. What they do not recognize is the category of victimizer, within the American system as it exists today. Logically, a patriarchal system based upon property ownership must NECESSARILY encode systemic injustice within the legal system. This was the argument that Dohhrn (however you spell her name) made. That's why they attacked the justice system.

For our part, the people of America SHOULD have put her and Billy in jail for a long time. But we didn't. We let them off.

But they still hate America. AmeriKKKa in Weatherspeak.

Likewise, internationally, such moral idiots recognize the category of victim, but not victimizer. Saddam Hussein was a victim for this reason. They don't recognize that he was an evil son of a bitch who needed to be killed, and that Iraq very simply could not have been freed from his tyranny any other way.

So you have this filter which only lets in the bad, and none of the good. They can grasp Americans killing Iraqi prisoners. They CAN'T grasp the tremendous accomplishment of creating something like a democracy in a nation that has known tyranny in varying forms since the dawn of recorded history some 5,000 years ago. The Epic of Gilgamesh comes from Iraq.

And this basic tendency is operative here. Nick--in an act of insensitivity remarkable even for a dedicated soft leftist in a somewhat heated debate--misunderstands me.

Who are these children crying? Those who lost parents on 9/11. Me, I think of the firefighters who broke down after days of work, finding people's arms and legs; a finger here, a piece of a foot there. I think of the mothers breaking down in their rooms, having lost children.

I think of the suicides, and the alcoholism, the broken marriages: thousands and thousands of utterly devastated lives.

What do you think of? That agents of the American government inflicted pain on a man who was plainly guilty, in an effort to make sure this didn't happen again, or worse. This occupies your mind.

It is inhuman to reject hatred and righteous anger completely. You must retain some notion of loyalty to YOUR people to retain a sense of being human. This doesn't mean you need to justify atrocities, but it does mean you care slightly more about the people around you who are like you, than the people who speak different languages, and who mistrust and hate you.

We owe people authentic justice. This is true liberalism, which is based on universal principles, not slavish devotion to legal niceties. We do not owe people love or affection.

And in point of fact, what one sees with leftists, is misplaced anger. They are always too mad at the wrong things. We send troops to make things better somewhere, and they only get mad at our troops, not at the much, much, much worse atrocities of our enemies.

To reject traditional moral codes is to cast oneself adrift into mass society, into carefully crafted and ubiquitous propaganda, which is designed for only one thing: to generate a mass audience which can be relied on to think the thoughts that are implanted in them.

Nick, you appear to me to have literally rejected the entirety of the Enlightenment. You use reason only with respect to the operation of the law, not with respect to moral codes. That trait is very, very old. The Pharisees were famous for it. That is what Christ--who did teach a moral code--chided them for.

Here is a nice quote from the Tao Te Ching, which is as close to a Bible as I get:

"When the great Tao is forgotten, kindness and morality arise. When wisdom and intelligence are born, the great pretence begins.

When there is no peace within the family, filial pride and devotion arise. When the country is confused and in chaos, loyal ministers appear."

Ponder that.

Barry # 134

How do you know for sure that the man killed another man for his wife if you don't follow due process?

It's great for you to be a hanging judge and honestly, I think my views on punishment for the guilty will be just as Old Testamnet as yours, but don't you believe that guilt has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt in all cases?

Nick in Sydney,

You missed my point. The intent of "justice", as I define it--my definition differs from the other Nick--is to convict the guilty, and acquit the innocent. The process is not the END, it is the MEANS.

Even if there is no judge, even if there is no trial, if the right guy gets executed, or imprisoned for life, justice has been done.

And--no matter how lengthy, convoluted, and self involved the justice machinery may appear--if the guilty people are not punished, the system is not working properly.

I have described the reasons why this happens above.

Sometimes hanging judges are right. Clear enough?

Here is the actual quote I wanted. I couldn't find it earlier, despite a close knowledge of the book:

"When the Tao is lost, there is goodness. When goodness is lost, there is kindness. When kindness is lost, there is justice. When justice is lost, there is ritual.

Now, ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion."

Nick has been arguing in favor of ritual, not even justice. From the vantage point he has been advocating, it is a short, steep drop into simple nihilism, which itself leads to the need to be led, which would-be totalitarians are more than happy to indulge.

Hi Barry,

thanks for the clarification and again, I agree that if the right guy gets executed/imprisoned then...happy days and conversely, a system that allows guilty people, be they terrorists or muggers or fraudsters to walk free, isn't providing as much justice as innocent people deserve.

but don't you agree that we need to have a clear process to be sure that the decision is right?

Who decides if it is the 'right guy' and how?

Barry,
I can’t force you to care a whit about process. Apparently, I can’t even show you that the means—fair considerations of innocence and guilt—ultimately support the end—justice. Principle gives meaning to process; process is required for principle. It seems that you need so desperately to punish people that you can’t bear the thought of even the most infinitesimal possibility of letting one guilty person go free, no matter the cost to innocents. Your complaint that “[w]e free guilty people, then brag about it” misses the point of process supporting principle entirely.
As usual, you assume that, because I object to moral outrages perpetrated in the name of America, that I am somehow blind to moral outrages elsewhere. Abu Ghraib—both incarnations—was despicable. I’m not quite sure what you’re advocating in #133. Human rights violations are endemic, and should be condemned wherever they occur. I have more direct power to condemn and redress violations carried out by Americans; does the fact that I have less power to do so when these occur in other nations mean that I should somehow ignore them when carried out in the name of my country? Does it mean that we shouldn’t be disappointed when we fail to live up to our ideals?

Your wife-stealing hypothetical, and not-so-clever analysis of Weather Underground, with bonus bloviating, are clumsy. What if our hypothetical suspect isn’t actually guilty? It’s not that justice can’t occur without the established procedures, it’s that we see the risk of injustice occurring without any procedures being applied as being so great that we’re willing to accept a small error rate. That’s the key here: looking at error rates, false positives, and false negatives. Using a court process affording basic protections, I’ll have a small false negative rate, and fewer false positives. So long as I am willing to calibrate and refine the process, I’ll be able to keep the error rate in check, and hopefully even decrease it; I am willing to accept the error rate in the meantime. Your earlier posts have also called for keeping the error rate low, but your lack of process (relying only on the impartial effort of the finder of fact, which, as we’ve seen, is difficult to obtain without the protections afforded by some sort of larger legal process) is likely to result in high rates of both false positives and false negatives depending on factors independent of the correct outcome. So really: I’m willing to accept getting it wrong *a few times* as a cost of getting it right *most of the time*, while working to *make it better*. You appear to be unwilling to accept this, and are instead saying that any error rate in the direction of false negatives is unacceptable, while simultaneously advocating a system that exposes you to a large risk of both false negatives and false positives. Your response to nick in sydney’s post at #137 actually missed his point: the *process*--in this case, a legal system affording some protection--is the most efficacious means of achieving the *ends*. It’s not a perfect one, and no one should pretend that it is. We don’t always have to like the results, but it’s the best thing we have for achieving justice, and it’s better than hoping (and not even checking) that “[s]ometimes hanging judges are right.”

If you were shocked by my earlier “act of insensitivity” in mocking your sensationalist writing, forgive me. I have little patience for your use of emotionalist arguments of the “Won’t someone think of the children!” variety to justify abandonment of cherished American ideals. You are invoking crimes on a grand scale in an attempt to whitewash unnecessary deprivations of liberty and due process because they are more convenient than lawful means.

Finally, I find it passing odd that you invoke the Tao Te Ching in the same discussion in which you have advocated torture and nigh-summary execution. Those methods don't seem particularly close to the Way.

Nick,
"...Using a court process affording basic protections, I’ll have a small false negative rate, and fewer false positives. So long as I am willing to calibrate and refine the process, I’ll be able to keep the error rate in check, and hopefully even decrease it; I am willing to accept the error rate in the meantime..."

I think we can all agree on this, again your advocating for process got it...process is good and desired to a point. The specific point that we've been debating related to KSM is what process is appropriate to ensure the best chance for a just decision. Civilian and standard military tribunals have botched the Weather Underground trials and the 93 NYC bombing trials and the Hamdan case. My fear is that inserting such a controversial figure as KSM into civilian courts will be a disaster and will likely not provide the required justice or if it does in fact provide justice it will be at a great cost to those who serve in the trial, possibly to the citizens of NY who might be exposed to further terror and intimidation and to justice itself if this is not handled properly and it becomes just a big show.

Bush tried to get a special military tribunal process defined specifically to handle these unusual cases through congress, but congress being lead by weak men and caught up in the broader domestic cultural and political wars could not/would not act on it and resolve it...so here we are.

This course of action will not turn out good for anyone particularly for Holder and Obama's political futures.

If you think the left has lashed back in righteous anger against the evil Bushitler, you ain't seen nothing yet when the even larger Jacksonian wing of American political culture fully awakes, organizes and responds with fury like you've never seen in your lifetime. The Tea Party's are a clue, a marker, the tip of the iceberg that the left is blindly sailing straight into.

Nick I'll guess from your writing that your probably well educated from a top school well schooled in all the great liberal shibboleths of post modern thought and live a comfortable life in a large liberal urban area in a blue dominated state. You've probably not spent much time amongst the red neck Jacksonians in flyover country...the unwashed hordes that shop at Walmart, who's sons serve in our military, who work the land, unclog our toilets, wire our houses and struggle to find work and make ends meet in Obama's and the lefty Congress' economic horror fantasy land. They make up the majority of the political independent center of this country. The governer's races in Virginia and New Jersey were a harbinger, the Jacksonians are coming and the political wipe outs will make the changes that came in 1996 look minor in comparison.

This is what the left's agenda including obsession with process over justice and rebuking Bush over justice as evidenced by forcing the KSM trial though civilian courts will wrought.

But hey, "if the glove don't fit...".

Lao Tse would have had no use for you: of that I am quite confident. He would have had no issues whatever with the execution of violent and evil men. He would simply have seen that as "justice", which would not be needed if the social order had not already decayed. As I already said, as bad as "justice" is, ritual--your level--is worse.

You continue to argue legalities. You quite literally can't see the forest for the trees. I am not using sensationalistic rhetoric: I am reacting as a warm blooded human beings who still possesses an emotional attachment to my fellow human beings.

I am not arguing we should have no process. I am arguing that the end result--justice--is more important than the process, and that the decision to try KSM and associates in a civilian court represents moral idiocy of the most profound sort imaginable.

Your problem is that you cannot separate the end result from the process. They are two different things, and the error you are making--as I have tried to show--leads to very profound and very pernicious consequences.

I don't doubt you are completely sincere here. By definition, you can't see what you can't see, can you?

But Barry, I don't think anybody's arguing scale of punishment for 'violent and evil men'.

It seems that Nick eloquently and I less so, would prefer to be sure that they are violent and evil before we punish them

Sheesh...Nick and Nick please read carefully and consult prior posts on this topic...neither Barry nor I have an issue with KSM being tried with proper controls in a military tribunal set-up to handle this case and others like it. We object to KSM being paraded around in a civilian court show trial for number of perfectly sound and logical reasons. These circular arguments are making me dizzy.

Comment was held, so I'll break it up.

Phil,

"The specific point that we've been debating related to KSM is what process is appropriate to ensure the best chance for a just decision."
Yes! Exactly. I'm glad that we can actually get that into the open, and I say that without any rancor.

What I do object to, however, is your ad hominem argument, which fails both logically and factually:
"your probably well educated from a top school well schooled in all the great liberal shibboleths of post modern thought and live a comfortable life in a large liberal urban area in a blue dominated state. You've probably not spent much time amongst the red neck Jacksonians in flyover country...the unwashed hordes that shop at Walmart, who's sons serve in our military, who work the land, unclog our toilets, wire our houses and struggle to find work and make ends meet..."
I wouldn't ordinarily bring it up, but since you've made it an issue, I'm from Iowa, and live there now. Doesn't really get much more "flyover country" than that. My parents grew up around Bellevue, a town now with a population of 2350 after strong growth in recent years. We visited often as I grew up. My paternal grandfather was a farmer, my maternal grandfather the town baker. My father served in the Air Force. My extended family comprises a nurse, a an electrician, a farmer, a retired teacher, a small-town doctor, etc., etc. I'll be seeing most of them in a week. Please, don't try to tell me who I am, where I come from, and whom I know when you don't know me.

Figures, Iowa seems to have become the most blue and liberal of the flyover states. My Grandma was from Iowa, don't know what's happened to that state.

It wasn't mean to be ad hominem, it was an observation.

Unfortunately, my last post appears to be permanently hung up in the filter. I actually thought it was a good response, too. Pity.

Phil,
What you did was indeed an ad hominem. You linked the validity of my argument, and an accompanying prediction of democratic rejection of it, to me personally, rather than actually responding to what I said. Further, it was pretty clearly intended to be insulting, judging from your last post. Bush league.

"ad hominem criticism of evidence cannot prove the negative of the proposition being claimed."

I realise most have moved on.

But the contention above that "...The specific point that we've been debating related to KSM is what process is appropriate to ensure the best chance for a just decision..." isn't one with which I would agree as being central this debate.

We should all recognise the basic premise that in an open democracy, justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. (Or "be seen to be believed", if you're quoting Wilde).

So choice of jurisdiction and forum for the trial is both a function of how best to serve justice, and how best to be seen to be serving justice. Those competing aims overlap, but are not the same.

As posted above, the underlying grievances matter when you're trying to defeat terrorism. So any politician or official who actually gets this, should always have one eye on trying to kick away the particular grievances which act as a support to terrorists, where those supports offer no particular advantage to the civilisation under threat. An example - and a good one - is G. Bay. There, the resulting intelligence would seem to be disputed by those in the know, and the damage to the international reputation and standing of the US has been enormous. So what benefits did G. Bay really bring? Not many. But it does give succour to those to can point to it as an example of a superpower ignoring the rule of law when it suits them to do so. (I know that you can argue about its legality - it's held under long lease from Cuba so not really part of the US etc.).

So what your current President is doing, in moving to dismantle that institution, and to move trials to the mainland, sends a number of signals, including a strong one that principles are not expendable when the going gets tough. It sends a message that however inconvenient, the rule of law will be respected in letter and in spirit.

As a final point, dismissive "observations" about the likely background of others on here says more about the prejudices and shortcomings in argument of those typing such nonsense, than it does about the subjects of such unsolicited personal speculation. We should try to do better.

Peace.