Holder shows no interest in justifying ‘preventive detention’

You just suggested that the Attorney General of the United States should be tried for treason and shot. Do you realize the disgusting irony in your statement?

Wow, what an intelligent comment. Maybe you can cite some US law that justifies your rant.

There are many reasons to try these men as common criminals. First, you don't give them the status of "martyr" or "soldier". Trying them as common criminals reduces them in status and places their actions into perspective.

Second, as Holder indicated there is no legal foundation for holding them as terrorists, however, there is a legal foundation for trying them as criminals.

Third, unlike Cheney/Bush, the Obama administration still believes that the US Constitution and US law are relevant to a civilized society, and not to be tossed away on a whim to score cheap political points with people such as yourself.

Well said.

If u didn't know this country was founded on specific set of ideals and principles and it is good to see that this administration is respecting them. But I guess people like you don't see that since you are ignorant and mislead by that disgusting rants of the other side.

Introspective

Inbreeding is no excuse for ignorance

which part of my rant...the trial or execution? lol

As Cicero once observed: “The law is silent during war”

1a. "try these men as common criminals"...hmmm let me get this right...u mean we shud equate these freakin terrorists (peeps who intentionally try to kill innocent children, women & men) with petty thieves & drunks???...ur logic is imploding: beam me up scottie...thats freakin brilliant Mark lol

1b. "you don't give them the status of martyr or soldier"...unfortunately/fortunately (depends on ones perspective) thats what radical islamists consider themselves...if you & ur like-minded frenz prefer to give them the "status" of a "common criminal" knock urselfs out, but i call them what they are: "freakin terrorists" (anyone deliberately intending to blow-up innocent children, women & men)...how can you refer to anyone who blows up (or tries) a plane full of innocent peeps as a "common criminal"?...i c nothing "common" about that at all...its one thing to embrace political orthodoxy, but its quiet another when u start spewing Orwellian concepts (newspeak/doublespeak)...ur leftist ideology can be just as frightening as that of the right!

1c. "Trying them as common criminals reduces them in status and places their actions into perspective"...first off, if we take ur elucidations to their logical conclusions; then common criminals are no different than terrorists & vice-versa...ur contention is that if we just treat them as "common criminals" is that it will somehow reduce their "status" shud be taken just about as serious as one wud with a carnival-barker...their status & ones perspective has already been determined by the respective cultures!

2a. "there is no legal foundation for holding them as terrorists" wrong, there is precedent!

2b. "there is a legal foundation for trying them as criminals"...omg, ur analytical mind just amazes me...what an astounding bit of legal observation lol

3a. "unlike Cheney/Bush" ...well here we probably have something in common: i definately disliked (to put it mildly) the Cheney/Bush team!

3b...as fo Obama, he's no freakin better & anyone taken in by his gifted guile or who voted Republican is in no position to question my intelligence!...granted my rhetoric was shot from the hip, but it wuz meant to emphasize how serious i take this problem we have with radical islam!...i'm not in here for a popularity contest...the constitution/law is only as good as your wealth will allow it, so spare me ur Republican sounding patriotic whining!

on the contrary...if i had said: "Holder shud b shot then tried"...now that wud b ironic lol...keep ur panties on man!

i'd respond, but ur obviously naive :(

so iz cross-dressing :)