Someone remind me again...

[j2k4]

I agree, so it seems, then, the international community ought to resolve to close the loopholes terrorists exploit by virtue of this lack of...let's call it provenance.

They need to be categorized.

Why does the U.N. - the de facto authority on such things - fail to act?

Perhaps it's fans can tell us...

[clocker]

Why does the U.N. - the de facto authority on such things - fail to act?

And we need the UN why, exactly?
We already have a justice system in place that we are so proud of that we attempt to export it- along with democracy- to every foreign country we invade.
Why is it not capable of dealing with terrorists?

[j2k4]

Why does the U.N. - the de facto authority on such things - fail to act?

And we need the UN why, exactly?
We already have a justice system in place that we are so proud of that we attempt to export it- along with democracy- to every foreign country we invade.
Why is it not capable of dealing with terrorists?

Why isn't Guantanamo capable of dealing with terrorists?

Much less expense, security concerns would be almost nil...

Let 'em have a civilian trial there.

Where is it stipulated we have to do this at maximum cost and risk to the U.S.?

[clocker]

Why isn't Guantanamo capable of dealing with terrorists?

Much less expense, security concerns would be almost nil...

Let 'em have a civilian trial there.

Where is it stipulated we have to do this at maximum cost and risk to the U.S.?

Guantanamo probably is capable, physically.
It is not and never will be, a part of the Federal judicial system.

Are there any civilians there?
Yeah, didn't think so.

Gee, too bad NYC isn't equipped to deal with high profile criminals and the risks associated with their trials.

Why do you think a Guantanamo trial reduces the "risks" you're so certain of?

[j2k4]

Why isn't Guantanamo capable of dealing with terrorists?

Much less expense, security concerns would be almost nil...

Let 'em have a civilian trial there.

Where is it stipulated we have to do this at maximum cost and risk to the U.S.?

Guantanamo probably is capable, physically.
It is not and never will be, a part of the Federal judicial system.

Are there any civilians there?
Yeah, didn't think so.

Gee, too bad NYC isn't equipped to deal with high profile criminals and the risks associated with their trials.

Why do you think a Guantanamo trial reduces the "risks" you're so certain of?

Because it's a military base, ffs.

Who says you can't have a civilian trial in a military setting?

Bring in the lawyers and let's have at it - if you think we're obligated to provide some token targets, I'm sure you could round up a willing contingent of civilian volunteers, too.

You neglected to address the issue of the expense, btw.

[clocker]

Maintaining Guantanamo is free?

In your simplistic world if the trial is held in Cuba, that's where the locus of potential terrorist attack will be, eh?
Like terrorists have a real history of logically connecting provocation to target.

[j2k4]

Well, it certainly deprives them of the ability to kill two birds with one stone, as it were.

So, to sum up your position, we should make every effort to make a statement, and certify our relative, um, enlightenment by conducting a civilian trial in the largest and most symbolically important city in the U.S.

Hey, how about this:

Why not have it in D.C.?

I think they have a few federal facilities there.

Now, there's an idea I can get behind.

Really.

[clocker]

Well, it certainly deprives them of the ability to kill two birds with one stone, as it were.

In what way?

So, to sum up your position, we should make every effort to make a statement, and certify our relative, um, enlightenment by conducting a civilian trial in the largest and most symbolically important city in the U.S.

"Make a statement, certify our enlightenment"?
How about "Attempt not to be the world's greatest hypocrites"?
Among other things, we constantly hold our judicial system up as a model for the rest of the world, so let's put our money where our mouths are and actually use it.

Hey, how about this:

Why not have it in D.C.?

I think they have a few federal facilities there.

Now, there's an idea I can get behind.

Really.

Sure, fine, why not.
I assume that this little piece of wit coincides with your belief that the trial's physical site is the most likely spot for a reprisal attack and hey, who wouldn't like to see all them damn politicians get it...right?

Ignoring for a moment that your main premise- the site of the trial will be the site of an attack- is total crap (no real surprise there- Republicans have shown a distinct lack of military awareness of late...see 9/11 = attack on Iraq), your glee in the potential destruction of the US government would have rained derision on any Democrat who dared express such a thought just four years ago.

"Good for goose, good for gander" is a concept that doesn't apply to you guys, is it?
Witness the parade of Republican legislators who decry the omnibus bailout bills while simultaneously taking credit for the money that has flown into their personal districts.
Hypocrites, all of em.