Actually, the neighbors of the federal courthouse in Alexandria, VA were a wee bit upset. But they were the only ones, and it worked out without a hitch.

I wonder if there are any quotes from Republicans about the people who live near the federal courthouse. I'll have to start looking.

"I haven't found any evidence of any conservatives criticizing Bush[STRIKE]'s position or his decision to try Moussaoui in a criminal court on American soil[/STRIKE]." - SB

Fixed.

It seems with every passing day and every passing action put forth by our legislature or the current administration the far right and its captive the Republican party are acting like that high school punk or provocatuer who is unrelenting with his harassment until enough have had enough and the punk is marched to the bathroom and given a swirly!

Billy Kristol, Rudy cross-dressing Guiliani, Lindsay log cabin Graham and all the other doom-sayers of today need to be given swirlies, or merely ostrasized from any future national dialog! -Kevo

and as we all know, repigs only speak the truth, the world came to an end when Zacarias Moussaoui was put on trial, and we can expect intellectual honesty and consistency from the Giuliani and Sessions. Right! (ROTFFLMAO!)

Is a little intellectual consistency too much to ask for?

The Republicans are guilty as charged. No surprise there, their hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Unfortunately, the same could be said of the Obama admin. Why are jury trials OK for some terrorists but not all? Why must some be given military tribunals and others just held indefinitely? If you have an answer, please give it to me and Glenn Greenwald.

It's equally important to note that no deocrats voiced their opposition ether, confirming that Republicans are alone in using nationl security to gain partisan advantage.

Of course, it would help if our "liberal" MSM would compare current statements of GOP politicians with views they've espoused in the past.

Yeah...right.

Stetson - exactly! how hard is it to say or write "but that's not what Giuliani was saying three years ago in virtually the same circumtances."

That's not opinion. those are facts.

For the past 8 years, people who had substantive disagreements with the actions of the Bush Administration (the Iraq war, civil liberties, the "Clear Skies" initiative, what have you) were accused of suffering from "Bush Derangement Syndrome", which was (at least in the vast majority of cases) both unjustified and insulting.

Helpfully, the right is now demonstrating what a real "derangement syndrome" looks like. Things that were neutral or even praiseworthy when a Republican President did them are now "aid and comfort to the terrorists" when done by a Democrat.

(And did I mention that he's Black?)

My understanding of criminal law is that jurisdiction in criminal conspiracy cases is most appropriately where the actual act of committing the crime that was the object of the conspiracy took place - i.e., the conspiracy is, for intents and purposes of jurisdiction, a seamless element of the crime that isn't necessarily separate from the crime itself.

As such, it was appropriate for the Bush Administration to try Moussaoui in Virginia, because that's where the attack on the Pentagon took place and he was part of the conspiracy.

As such, it is entirely appropriate for KSM and his buds to be tried in NYC where the WTC attacks took place.

It just illustrates the inconsistancy and hypocrisy of the Republicans to argue that Obama is wrong for handling KSM in exactly the same manner that Bush handled Moussaoui - they were both part of the exact same conspiracy and as such should be treated the same by the law. The fact that they didn't trot out all these arguments and indignation while Bush was President speaks volumes.

The Republicans are guilty as charged. No surprise there, their hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Unfortunately, the same could be said of the Obama admin. Why are jury trials OK for some terrorists but not all?

Continuing on my remarks in my earlier post - the 9/11 conspirators are being tried specifically for the 9/11 conspiracy in a criminal trial in federal court - the fact that we had to go pick them up on a battlefield is immaterial to what they are being charged with.

The other "terrorists", though, who have nothing to do with a criminal act that took place here in America, cannot be prosecuted under American criminal law - that law doesn't extend to "criminal" acts that took place abroad (unless, as I discussed in my post above, that they participated in a criminal conspiracy to commit a crime in the US in which case the conspiracy is considered part of the crime).

Since the only reason we have them is because the military got them "on the battlefield" while they were allegedly engaged in military activity of some sort, military law and military tribunals are more appropriate. What would US civilian courts have jurisdication over when it comes to foreigners who have not broken any US criminal laws?

"Is a little intellectual consistency too much to ask for?"

From people who aren't ignorant motherfuckers, no.

The Republicans in power are NEVER going to be consistent on anything. If it was okay for a Republican President it will NEVER be the same for a Democratic President. They are the classic flip floppers.

Giuliani and every other Bush-loving conservative now screaming about the unbelievable danger Holder's decision will subject us to, really are concerned only about one thing: the trials may well produce the first public record of the Bush Administration's many criminal violations in its treatment of KSM and other Gitmo prisoners. That's what worries the Bush crowd and all its current and former acolytes.

Intellectual and Republicans are mutually contradictary terms. And yea, it would be nice if the MSM actually looked at what they said and what they are saying.