...in the name of jihad, here and abroad.

[a fan]

IF the 8 now arrested migrants were screened upon entry, it shows how inadequate the screening process is.
No amount of money in a bill will fix that if other countries do not enter information on the individuals in question.

Right. So there it is...you don't think there's anything we can do about it in the first place.

So....your earlier worries about what you call the open Southern Border and terrorist were fake, just as I said. You're telling us here we can't close it no matter what we do.

Thank you for a moment of honest opinion.

And obviously, if the screening is inadequate at our borders? Why the F would you waste time as a terrorist entering through the Southern border, and walk miles in the Texas desert?

Better off to fly 1st class and enjoy Champagne before landing at Dulles or LaGuardia.


And naturally, allllll the claims about terrorists entering via the Southern border will disappear the millisecond Trump is POTUS.

Which obviously is what all these feigned complaints about terrorism are about: vote Trump. And (hilariously) we ALREADY did that, and yet terrorists can still enter America from all points.

You'd think the voters would catch on. But nope. Not catching on. Vote Trump.

[old salt]

IF the 8 now arrested migrants were screened upon entry, it shows how inadequate the screening process is.
No amount of money in a bill will fix that if other countries do not enter information on the individuals in question.

Right. So there it is...you don't think there's anything we can do about it in the first place.

Yes we can. Don't let anyone in who's background information can't be screened. If that restricts entry from countries who can't or won't provide access to valid security background information, then so be it. We can't accurately evaluate a request for asylum without that information from their country of origin.

[a fan]

IF the 8 now arrested migrants were screened upon entry, it shows how inadequate the screening process is.
No amount of money in a bill will fix that if other countries do not enter information on the individuals in question.

Right. So there it is...you don't think there's anything we can do about it in the first place.

Yes we can. Don't let anyone in who's background information can't be screened. If that restricts entry from countries who can't or won't provide access to valid security background information, then so be it. We can't accurately evaluate a request for asylum without that information from their country of origin.

Your Republican leaders are telling you that they don't have the money/infrastructure to do that, OS.

You understand with zero difficulty that the DoD is a bottomless pit of spending just to keep it in working order, let alone tip-top shape. Do you REALLY think that this idea ONLY applies to one Department in our Government?

[old salt]

IF the 8 now arrested migrants were screened upon entry, it shows how inadequate the screening process is.
No amount of money in a bill will fix that if other countries do not enter information on the individuals in question.

Right. So there it is...you don't think there's anything we can do about it in the first place.

Yes we can. Don't let anyone in who's background information can't be screened. If that restricts entry from countries who can't or won't provide access to valid security background information, then so be it. We can't accurately evaluate a request for asylum without that information from their country of origin.

Your Republican leaders are telling you that they don't have the money/infrastructure to do that, OS.

You understand with zero difficulty that the DoD is a bottomless pit of spending just to keep it in working order, let alone tip-top shape. Do you REALLY think that this idea ONLY applies to one Department in our Government?

Don't have the money to do what ? It doesn't cost any money to deny entry to citizens of countries that can't or won't provide security or criminal background info -- it saves money from not having to process, track, adjudicate & support them once turned loose in the US. It doesn't cost money to deny entry via a stay in Mexico policy -- it saves money. It doesn't cost money to stop blanket parolee entrants from a country that cannot provide background info -- it saves money. Limit Afghan asylum seekers to those who can be vouched for by a US citizen who worked with them in Afghanistan.

[a fan]

Don't have the money to do what ? It doesn't cost any money to deny entry to citizens of countries that can't or won't provide security or criminal background info

What are you talking about?

Of COURSE it costs money. Or are you planning on heading down to the border to check someone's documents for free? Or to keep others from crossing illegally? Who's going to check this stuff? And how do they confirm paperwork as real? Magic? Or do they need databases for that?

Come on. Arguing to argue. Enough of this....

[old salt]

Don't have the money to do what ? It doesn't cost any money to deny entry to citizens of countries that can't or won't provide security or criminal background info

What are you talking about?

Of COURSE it costs money. Or are you planning on heading down to the border to check someone's documents for free? Or to keep others from crossing illegally? Who's going to check this stuff? And how do they confirm paperwork as real? Magic? Or do they need databases for that?

Come on. Arguing to argue. Enough of this....

They already supposedly do a background screening on everyone who's let in, based on who they claim to be -- that's why so many migrants ditch their passports. It should be -- no passport, no valid ID = no entry. It should not be as easy as voting by mail without an ID check.

https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/por ... y/overview

Individuals seeking entry into the United States are inspected at Ports of Entry (POEs) by CBP officers who determine their admissibility. The inspection process includes all work performed in connection with the entry of aliens and United States citizens into the United States, including pre-inspection performed by the Immigration Inspectors outside the United States.

"An officer is responsible for determining the nationality and identity of each applicant for admission and for preventing the entry of ineligible aliens, including criminals, terrorists, and drug traffickers, among others. U.S. citizens are automatically admitted upon verification of citizenship; aliens are questioned and their documents are examined to determine admissibility based on the requirements of the U.S. immigration law."

With stay-in-Mexico, no catch & release & no blanket parolees, it's less migrants to screen, requiring fewer CBP to do screenings & fewer migrants who require CBP to detain or otherwise care for once admitted. The fewer allowed entry, the less the workload & expense for CBP, INS, ICE, DoJ & state & local govt social services & law enforcement.

[CU88a]

He must have ditched his USA Passport:

Samson Lucas Bariah Fussner, of Milton, Florida, was confronted by Yellowstone law enforcement rangers early on the morning of July 4 while allegedly shooting a semi-automatic rifle toward a dining facility at Canyon Village, according to NPS. Approximately 200 people were in the facility at the time, NPS said in an update on the incident Tuesday.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/yellowstone-n ... =111794858

I guess he was just celebrating the 4th by wanting to kill his fellow citizens???

[youthathletics]

9/11 mastermind KSM and two other terrorists awaiting trial on Guantanamo Bay strike plea deals: https://nypost.com/2024/07/31/us-news/9 ... ce=twitter

[cradleandshoot]

9/11 mastermind KSM and two other terrorists awaiting trial on Guantanamo Bay strike plea deals: https://nypost.com/2024/07/31/us-news/9 ... ce=twitter

The feds had no qualms about executing Timothy McVeigh. I believe they did so with great satisfaction. I'm only surprised that KSM didn't simply get timed served.

[Kismet]

9/11 mastermind KSM and two other terrorists awaiting trial on Guantanamo Bay strike plea deals: https://nypost.com/2024/07/31/us-news/9 ... ce=twitter

The feds had no qualms about executing Timothy McVeigh. I believe they did so with great satisfaction. I'm only surprised that KSM didn't simply get timed served.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/02/us/p ... -deal.html

SECDEF just overruled the plea deal and took direct control of the case

"Defense Secretary Revokes Plea Deal for Accused Sept. 11 Plotters
Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III assumed direct oversight of the case and effectively put the death penalty back on the table.
Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III on Friday overruled the overseer of the war court at Guantánamo Bay and revoked a plea agreement reached earlier this week with the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and two alleged accomplices.

The Pentagon announced the decision with a memorandum relieving the senior Defense Department official responsible for military commissions of her oversight of the capital case against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his alleged accomplices for the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York City, at the Pentagon and in a Pennsylvania field. In taking away the authority, Mr. Austin assumed direct oversight of the case and canceled the agreement, effectively reinstating it as a death-penalty case. He left Ms. Escallier in the role of oversight of Guantánamo’s other cases."

The trial problem now remains as it is questionable that confessions obtained under "torture" might not be admissable at trial.

[cradleandshoot]

9/11 mastermind KSM and two other terrorists awaiting trial on Guantanamo Bay strike plea deals: https://nypost.com/2024/07/31/us-news/9 ... ce=twitter

The feds had no qualms about executing Timothy McVeigh. I believe they did so with great satisfaction. I'm only surprised that KSM didn't simply get timed served.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/02/us/p ... -deal.html

SECDEF just overruled the plea deal and took direct control of the case

"Defense Secretary Revokes Plea Deal for Accused Sept. 11 Plotters
Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III assumed direct oversight of the case and effectively put the death penalty back on the table.
Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III on Friday overruled the overseer of the war court at Guantánamo Bay and revoked a plea agreement reached earlier this week with the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and two alleged accomplices.

The Pentagon announced the decision with a memorandum relieving the senior Defense Department official responsible for military commissions of her oversight of the capital case against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his alleged accomplices for the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York City, at the Pentagon and in a Pennsylvania field. In taking away the authority, Mr. Austin assumed direct oversight of the case and canceled the agreement, effectively reinstating it as a death-penalty case. He left Ms. Escallier in the role of oversight of Guantánamo’s other cases."

The trial problem now remains as it is questionable that confessions obtained under "torture" might not be admissable at trial.

You meant to say "enhanced interrogation technique".

[Kismet]

9/11 mastermind KSM and two other terrorists awaiting trial on Guantanamo Bay strike plea deals: https://nypost.com/2024/07/31/us-news/9 ... ce=twitter

The feds had no qualms about executing Timothy McVeigh. I believe they did so with great satisfaction. I'm only surprised that KSM didn't simply get timed served.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/02/us/p ... -deal.html

SECDEF just overruled the plea deal and took direct control of the case

"Defense Secretary Revokes Plea Deal for Accused Sept. 11 Plotters
Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III assumed direct oversight of the case and effectively put the death penalty back on the table.
Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III on Friday overruled the overseer of the war court at Guantánamo Bay and revoked a plea agreement reached earlier this week with the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and two alleged accomplices.

The Pentagon announced the decision with a memorandum relieving the senior Defense Department official responsible for military commissions of her oversight of the capital case against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his alleged accomplices for the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York City, at the Pentagon and in a Pennsylvania field. In taking away the authority, Mr. Austin assumed direct oversight of the case and canceled the agreement, effectively reinstating it as a death-penalty case. He left Ms. Escallier in the role of oversight of Guantánamo’s other cases."

The trial problem now remains as it is questionable that confessions obtained under "torture" might not be admissable at trial.

You meant to say "enhanced interrogation technique".

No matter what one calls it - It is a problem at trial especially if the object is a death penalty conviction. Confessions would likely be inadmissable at trial if obtained under those circumstances.

Hence the reason for the plea deal the first place

[cradleandshoot]

9/11 mastermind KSM and two other terrorists awaiting trial on Guantanamo Bay strike plea deals: https://nypost.com/2024/07/31/us-news/9 ... ce=twitter

The feds had no qualms about executing Timothy McVeigh. I believe they did so with great satisfaction. I'm only surprised that KSM didn't simply get timed served.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/02/us/p ... -deal.html

SECDEF just overruled the plea deal and took direct control of the case

"Defense Secretary Revokes Plea Deal for Accused Sept. 11 Plotters
Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III assumed direct oversight of the case and effectively put the death penalty back on the table.
Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III on Friday overruled the overseer of the war court at Guantánamo Bay and revoked a plea agreement reached earlier this week with the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and two alleged accomplices.

The Pentagon announced the decision with a memorandum relieving the senior Defense Department official responsible for military commissions of her oversight of the capital case against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his alleged accomplices for the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York City, at the Pentagon and in a Pennsylvania field. In taking away the authority, Mr. Austin assumed direct oversight of the case and canceled the agreement, effectively reinstating it as a death-penalty case. He left Ms. Escallier in the role of oversight of Guantánamo’s other cases."

The trial problem now remains as it is questionable that confessions obtained under "torture" might not be admissable at trial.

You meant to say "enhanced interrogation technique".

No matter what one calls it - It is a problem at trial especially if the object is a death penalty conviction. Confessions would likely be inadmissable at trial if obtained under those circumstances.

Hence the reason for the plea deal the first place

The problem with the plea deal was the timing. That would have been tricky for a tough on crime former prosecutor to justify. Lloyd Austin made a smart move by nipping the deal at the bud. Come mid November the plea deal will likely be put back into place.

[MDlaxfan76]

9/11 mastermind KSM and two other terrorists awaiting trial on Guantanamo Bay strike plea deals: https://nypost.com/2024/07/31/us-news/9 ... ce=twitter

The feds had no qualms about executing Timothy McVeigh. I believe they did so with great satisfaction. I'm only surprised that KSM didn't simply get timed served.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/02/us/p ... -deal.html

SECDEF just overruled the plea deal and took direct control of the case

"Defense Secretary Revokes Plea Deal for Accused Sept. 11 Plotters
Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III assumed direct oversight of the case and effectively put the death penalty back on the table.
Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III on Friday overruled the overseer of the war court at Guantánamo Bay and revoked a plea agreement reached earlier this week with the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and two alleged accomplices.

The Pentagon announced the decision with a memorandum relieving the senior Defense Department official responsible for military commissions of her oversight of the capital case against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his alleged accomplices for the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York City, at the Pentagon and in a Pennsylvania field. In taking away the authority, Mr. Austin assumed direct oversight of the case and canceled the agreement, effectively reinstating it as a death-penalty case. He left Ms. Escallier in the role of oversight of Guantánamo’s other cases."

The trial problem now remains as it is questionable that confessions obtained under "torture" might not be admissable at trial.

You meant to say "enhanced interrogation technique".

No matter what one calls it - It is a problem at trial especially if the object is a death penalty conviction. Confessions would likely be inadmissable at trial if obtained under those circumstances.

Hence the reason for the plea deal the first place

The problem with the plea deal was the timing. That would have been tricky for a tough on crime former prosecutor to justify. Lloyd Austin made a smart move by nipping the deal at the bud. Come mid November the plea deal will likely be put back into place.

You being serious?
you think this has anything to do with current political campaigns?

I don't. Not remotely. Harris could easily not defend it, indeed disagree with it...not her call though...as VP.

I do think the 'politics' of combating terrorism mattered to Austin and this answer, as pragmatic as it may seem (or be) legally, has potential costs in that fight.

Judgment call.
And Austin says it was his call to make and he hadn't agreed.

But Harris could have certainly attacked the initial call, had Austin let it stand, and burnished the 'tough on crime' rep.

Austin's move did avoid any conflict between Harris and Biden (had Biden also let it stand).

The question is, will KSM ever actually have a trial?

[cradleandshoot]

9/11 mastermind KSM and two other terrorists awaiting trial on Guantanamo Bay strike plea deals: https://nypost.com/2024/07/31/us-news/9 ... ce=twitter

The feds had no qualms about executing Timothy McVeigh. I believe they did so with great satisfaction. I'm only surprised that KSM didn't simply get timed served.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/02/us/p ... -deal.html

SECDEF just overruled the plea deal and took direct control of the case

"Defense Secretary Revokes Plea Deal for Accused Sept. 11 Plotters
Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III assumed direct oversight of the case and effectively put the death penalty back on the table.
Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III on Friday overruled the overseer of the war court at Guantánamo Bay and revoked a plea agreement reached earlier this week with the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and two alleged accomplices.

The Pentagon announced the decision with a memorandum relieving the senior Defense Department official responsible for military commissions of her oversight of the capital case against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his alleged accomplices for the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York City, at the Pentagon and in a Pennsylvania field. In taking away the authority, Mr. Austin assumed direct oversight of the case and canceled the agreement, effectively reinstating it as a death-penalty case. He left Ms. Escallier in the role of oversight of Guantánamo’s other cases."

The trial problem now remains as it is questionable that confessions obtained under "torture" might not be admissable at trial.

You meant to say "enhanced interrogation technique".

No matter what one calls it - It is a problem at trial especially if the object is a death penalty conviction. Confessions would likely be inadmissable at trial if obtained under those circumstances.

Hence the reason for the plea deal the first place

The problem with the plea deal was the timing. That would have been tricky for a tough on crime former prosecutor to justify. Lloyd Austin made a smart move by nipping the deal at the bud. Come mid November the plea deal will likely be put back into place.

You being serious?
you think this has anything to do with current political campaigns?

I don't. Not remotely. Harris could easily not defend it, indeed disagree with it...not her call though...as VP.

I do think the 'politics' of combating terrorism mattered to Austin and this answer, as pragmatic as it may seem (or be) legally, has potential costs in that fight.

Judgment call.
And Austin says it was his call to make and he hadn't agreed.

But Harris could have certainly attacked the initial call, had Austin let it stand, and burnished the 'tough on crime' rep.

Austin's move did avoid any conflict between Harris and Biden (had Biden also let it stand).

The question is, will KSM ever actually have a trial?

I'm quite serious. Do you think the Republicans wouldn't have pounced on it as Biden/ Harris being weak on alleged terrorists? I think team trump would have been all over it. What I don't know is why such a plea deal was never advanced up the chain of command before it was ever announced? Sec Def put the kibosh on that real quick.

[youthathletics]

The problem with the plea deal was the timing. That would have been tricky for a tough on crime former prosecutor to justify. Lloyd Austin made a smart move by nipping the deal at the bud. Come mid November the plea deal will likely be put back into place.

You being serious?
you think this has anything to do with current political campaigns?

I don't. Not remotely. Harris could easily not defend it, indeed disagree with it...not her call though...as VP.

I do think the 'politics' of combating terrorism mattered to Austin and this answer, as pragmatic as it may seem (or be) legally, has potential costs in that fight.

Judgment call.
And Austin says it was his call to make and he hadn't agreed.

But Harris could have certainly attacked the initial call, had Austin let it stand, and burnished the 'tough on crime' rep.

Austin's move did avoid any conflict between Harris and Biden (had Biden also let it stand).

The question is, will KSM ever actually have a trial?

I'm quite serious. Do you think the Republicans wouldn't have pounced on it as Biden/ Harris being weak on alleged terrorists? I think team trump would have been all over it. What I don't know is why such a plea deal was never advanced up the chain of command before it was ever announced? Sec Def put the kibosh on that real quick.

You both can be right...this would have been a kick in the crotch to every military person invested in the 20 year GWOT, not to mention the ripple impact. And most certainly playing a part during the campaign and voters.

[MDlaxfan76]

The problem with the plea deal was the timing. That would have been tricky for a tough on crime former prosecutor to justify. Lloyd Austin made a smart move by nipping the deal at the bud. Come mid November the plea deal will likely be put back into place.

You being serious?
you think this has anything to do with current political campaigns?

I don't. Not remotely. Harris could easily not defend it, indeed disagree with it...not her call though...as VP.

I do think the 'politics' of combating terrorism mattered to Austin and this answer, as pragmatic as it may seem (or be) legally, has potential costs in that fight.

Judgment call.
And Austin says it was his call to make and he hadn't agreed.

But Harris could have certainly attacked the initial call, had Austin let it stand, and burnished the 'tough on crime' rep.

Austin's move did avoid any conflict between Harris and Biden (had Biden also let it stand).

The question is, will KSM ever actually have a trial?

I'm quite serious. Do you think the Republicans wouldn't have pounced on it as Biden/ Harris being weak on alleged terrorists? I think team trump would have been all over it. What I don't know is why such a plea deal was never advanced up the chain of command before it was ever announced? Sec Def put the kibosh on that real quick.

You both can be right...this would have been a kick in the crotch to every military person invested in the 20 year GWOT, not to mention the ripple impact. And most certainly playing a part during the campaign and voters.

You guys are both ignoring that this would have provided a perfect opportunity for Harris to burnish her 'tough on crime' rep by disagreeing with the settlement. She has no power to overturn it, so free to disagree with it. Sister Souljah moment playbook. My hunch is she'll back Austin's call, just not as dramatic as if going against Admin on this.

Joe needn't care politically at this point if he was accused of being 'soft'...but I suspect that he too disagreed with the call, so isn't going to now step on Austin.

That said, you guys think KSM will ever get a trial? Any issues with that?

BTW, "soft on alleged terrorists"??? Look at the record, right?...surely you're not actually agreeing that Biden's been "soft on alleged terrorists" you're just saying that The Trump Campaign would have lied about it, right?

[youthathletics]

The problem with the plea deal was the timing. That would have been tricky for a tough on crime former prosecutor to justify. Lloyd Austin made a smart move by nipping the deal at the bud. Come mid November the plea deal will likely be put back into place.

You being serious?
you think this has anything to do with current political campaigns?

I don't. Not remotely. Harris could easily not defend it, indeed disagree with it...not her call though...as VP.

I do think the 'politics' of combating terrorism mattered to Austin and this answer, as pragmatic as it may seem (or be) legally, has potential costs in that fight.

Judgment call.
And Austin says it was his call to make and he hadn't agreed.

But Harris could have certainly attacked the initial call, had Austin let it stand, and burnished the 'tough on crime' rep.

Austin's move did avoid any conflict between Harris and Biden (had Biden also let it stand).

The question is, will KSM ever actually have a trial?

I'm quite serious. Do you think the Republicans wouldn't have pounced on it as Biden/ Harris being weak on alleged terrorists? I think team trump would have been all over it. What I don't know is why such a plea deal was never advanced up the chain of command before it was ever announced? Sec Def put the kibosh on that real quick.

You both can be right...this would have been a kick in the crotch to every military person invested in the 20 year GWOT, not to mention the ripple impact. And most certainly playing a part during the campaign and voters.

You guys are both ignoring that this would have provided a perfect opportunity for Harris to burnish her 'tough on crime' rep by disagreeing with the settlement. She has no power to overturn it, so free to disagree with it. Sister Souljah moment playbook. My hunch is she'll back Austin's call, just not as dramatic as if going against Admin on this.

Joe needn't care politically at this point if he was accused of being 'soft'...but I suspect that he too disagreed with the call, so isn't going to now step on Austin.

That said, you guys think KSM will ever get a trial? Any issues with that?

BTW, "soft on alleged terrorists"??? Look at the record, right?...surely you're not actually agreeing that Biden's been "soft on alleged terrorists" you're just saying that The Trump Campaign would have lied about it, right?

Austin helped her, maybe he knew she would have done nothing. Not sure Biden knows who KSM is at this point.

[Kismet]

The problem with the plea deal was the timing. That would have been tricky for a tough on crime former prosecutor to justify. Lloyd Austin made a smart move by nipping the deal at the bud. Come mid November the plea deal will likely be put back into place.

You being serious?
you think this has anything to do with current political campaigns?

I don't. Not remotely. Harris could easily not defend it, indeed disagree with it...not her call though...as VP.

I do think the 'politics' of combating terrorism mattered to Austin and this answer, as pragmatic as it may seem (or be) legally, has potential costs in that fight.

Judgment call.
And Austin says it was his call to make and he hadn't agreed.

But Harris could have certainly attacked the initial call, had Austin let it stand, and burnished the 'tough on crime' rep.

Austin's move did avoid any conflict between Harris and Biden (had Biden also let it stand).

The question is, will KSM ever actually have a trial?

I'm quite serious. Do you think the Republicans wouldn't have pounced on it as Biden/ Harris being weak on alleged terrorists? I think team trump would have been all over it. What I don't know is why such a plea deal was never advanced up the chain of command before it was ever announced? Sec Def put the kibosh on that real quick.

You both can be right...this would have been a kick in the crotch to every military person invested in the 20 year GWOT, not to mention the ripple impact. And most certainly playing a part during the campaign and voters.

You guys are both ignoring that this would have provided a perfect opportunity for Harris to burnish her 'tough on crime' rep by disagreeing with the settlement. She has no power to overturn it, so free to disagree with it. Sister Souljah moment playbook. My hunch is she'll back Austin's call, just not as dramatic as if going against Admin on this.

Joe needn't care politically at this point if he was accused of being 'soft'...but I suspect that he too disagreed with the call, so isn't going to now step on Austin.

That said, you guys think KSM will ever get a trial? Any issues with that?

BTW, "soft on alleged terrorists"??? Look at the record, right?...surely you're not actually agreeing that Biden's been "soft on alleged terrorists" you're just saying that The Trump Campaign would have lied about it, right?

Austin helped her, maybe he knew she would have done nothing. Not sure Biden knows who KSM is at this point.

I'd like to know how this pleas deal got done without SECDEF in the first place??????

[MDlaxfan76]

The problem with the plea deal was the timing. That would have been tricky for a tough on crime former prosecutor to justify. Lloyd Austin made a smart move by nipping the deal at the bud. Come mid November the plea deal will likely be put back into place.

You being serious?
you think this has anything to do with current political campaigns?

I don't. Not remotely. Harris could easily not defend it, indeed disagree with it...not her call though...as VP.

I do think the 'politics' of combating terrorism mattered to Austin and this answer, as pragmatic as it may seem (or be) legally, has potential costs in that fight.

Judgment call.
And Austin says it was his call to make and he hadn't agreed.

But Harris could have certainly attacked the initial call, had Austin let it stand, and burnished the 'tough on crime' rep.

Austin's move did avoid any conflict between Harris and Biden (had Biden also let it stand).

The question is, will KSM ever actually have a trial?

I'm quite serious. Do you think the Republicans wouldn't have pounced on it as Biden/ Harris being weak on alleged terrorists? I think team trump would have been all over it. What I don't know is why such a plea deal was never advanced up the chain of command before it was ever announced? Sec Def put the kibosh on that real quick.

You both can be right...this would have been a kick in the crotch to every military person invested in the 20 year GWOT, not to mention the ripple impact. And most certainly playing a part during the campaign and voters.

You guys are both ignoring that this would have provided a perfect opportunity for Harris to burnish her 'tough on crime' rep by disagreeing with the settlement. She has no power to overturn it, so free to disagree with it. Sister Souljah moment playbook. My hunch is she'll back Austin's call, just not as dramatic as if going against Admin on this.

Joe needn't care politically at this point if he was accused of being 'soft'...but I suspect that he too disagreed with the call, so isn't going to now step on Austin.

That said, you guys think KSM will ever get a trial? Any issues with that?

BTW, "soft on alleged terrorists"??? Look at the record, right?...surely you're not actually agreeing that Biden's been "soft on alleged terrorists" you're just saying that The Trump Campaign would have lied about it, right?

Austin helped her, maybe he knew she would have done nothing. Not sure Biden knows who KSM is at this point.

Why make a dumb statement?
You think he didn't know the family of hostages just released?
Didn't know who they gave up to Putin in exchange, didn't work with other countries' leaders to accomplish it?

You didn't answer my questions.

And what do you mean by "done nothing"?
She has zero power to do something other than offer an opinion.
Do you mean she's "soft" and wouldn't have used it as a Sister Souljah moment?