Eric Holder Brings A Circus To The Courts

[George Costanza]

They won't cooperate with their attorney, not even when she debases herself for them. Not even when she demands that all other women debase themselves for them.

Excuse me? I must have missed that - would you care to be more specific as to how the attorney "debased" herself and "all other women"?

To these radical muslims, they will never get a fair trial because we won't accept their religious mandate to kill infidels as a valid defense.

So you are conceding that they have not been treated fairly - good. That's a starting point. Next issue - it sounds to me as if you are endorsing such a program, i.e., since we don't like what they did or why they did it, then they shouldn't get a fair trial.

I know that you have enough familiarity with the criminal justice system to be able to see that this is simply an absurd argument. Let's see - we don't like the fact that the murderer killed his victim in a particularly vicious manner, so let's not give him a fair trial.

 

[Katzndogz]

Not permtting these terrorists to make a farce of the proceedings is denying them a fair trial?

If there is anything interfering with a fair trial, it's the idiot defense attorney reminding the Court how evil and oppressive these men are by wearing the stupid abeya, and making it worse, by demanding that all women in the courtroom be required to wear an abeya.

 

[George Costanza]

Not permtting these terrorists to make a farce of the proceedings is denying them a fair trial?

If there is anything interfering with a fair trial, it's the idiot defense attorney reminding the Court how evil and oppressive these men are by wearing the stupid abeya, and making it worse, by demanding that all women in the courtroom be required to wear an abeya.

Are they getting a speedy trial? How long were they incarcerated prior to trial? In California, a person in custody on a felony charge has a right to a trial within 60 days from the date of their arrest. Were they afforded the right to counsel at the time of their arrest? When were they (finally) provided counsel in this (these) case(s)? How were they treated during their pre-trial incarceration? Were they tortured? Were confessions or admissions extracted from them due to torture or, "aggressive interrogation techniques"?

There is a lot more to a fair trial than merely what goes on in the courtroom, although the actual conduct of the trial itself is a large part of it.

BTW - I see I may have misinterpreted your statement about not getting a fair trial. You are apparently saying that, to these defendants (or "terrorists" as you describe them), they will never get a fair trial because their idea of a fair trial is one which allows them to create scenes in the courtroom. OK, yes - that's a valid point. Apologies for the misinterp.

 

[George Costanza]

If there is anything interfering with a fair trial, it's the idiot defense attorney reminding the Court how evil and oppressive these men are by wearing the stupid abeya, and making it worse, by demanding that all women in the courtroom be required to wear an abeya.

What do you think the point is that the "idiot defense attorney" is trying to make by wearing an abeya and demanding that all women in the courtroom also be required to wear an abeya?

 

[Katzndogz]

Not permtting these terrorists to make a farce of the proceedings is denying them a fair trial?

If there is anything interfering with a fair trial, it's the idiot defense attorney reminding the Court how evil and oppressive these men are by wearing the stupid abeya, and making it worse, by demanding that all women in the courtroom be required to wear an abeya.

Are they getting a speedy trial? How long were they incarcerated prior to trial? In California, a person in custody on a felony charge has a right to a trial within 60 days from the date of their arrest.

Were they afforded the right to counsel at the time of their arrest? When were they (finally) provided counsel in this (these) case(s)?

How were they treated during their pre-trial incarceration? Were they tortured? Were confessions or admissions extracted from them due to torture or, "aggressive interrogation techniques"?

There is a lot more to a fair trial than merely what goes on in the courtroom, although the actual conduct of the trial itself is a large part of it.

They aren't criminals. They are enemy combatants. They are not getting a criminal trial but a military tribunal. They weren't tortured. They were made uncomfortable. They should have been tortured. These vermin should have been broken years ago. It is a shame that they are still defiant. I disagree with the treatment they received. They should have been pistol whipped by a woman in a mini skirt and bikini top on a daily basis. As it is, yes we got intelligence even from the very VERY mild treatment they received. Enough intelligence to enable obama to "get" Bin Laden.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Has anyone argued that they are being harshly detained because they don't have pilates lessons yet?

This is such bullshit. I really want to know who the hell in the Bush administration thought Gitmo was a good idea.

GITMO was a good idea, if it wasn't obie wan would have closed it.

Aw come on willow. I was thinking more along the lines of a cold climate. Not warm and fuzzy like GITMO.

Something like Newfoundland. Where your jailers don't even make sense to you. They make you kiss the cod daily. They torture you with screech.

Oh wait! I'm doing a tourism commercial for one of my provinces.

On the serious side, have you heard how these prisoners are treated like gold? 3,000 dead plus and they are treated like they are nothing short of saints?

Wow, kinda makes you want to go terrorist, doesn't it...oh, wait, domestically-grown terrorists are executed out-of-hand, 'specially personally...is that a drone I hear overhead?

 

[gallantwarrior]

This is the reason Obama doesn't like to capture these guys.

He'd rather miss out on the intel they would get and save himself the embarrassment.

Instead Obama bribes governments with taxpayer money to get a similar result.

KABUL – The US has been secretly releasing captured Taliban fighters from a detention center in Afghanistan in a bid to strengthen its hand in peace talks with the insurgent group, the Washington Post reported Monday.

The "strategic release" program of high-level detainees is designed to give the US a bargaining chip in some areas of Afghanistan where international forces struggle to exercise control, the report said.

Under the risky program, the hardened fighters must promise to give up violence and are threatened with further punishment, but there is nothing to stop them resuming attacks against Afghan and American troops.


Read more: US secretly releasing Taliban fighters, report says | Fox News

I'm quite sure the international forces will be thankful to have such worthy opponents once again. Who in their right mind would even begin to think that by releasing enemy combatants back into their communities, in a country becoming increasingly hostile to our soldiers, is a good idea?

 

[gallantwarrior]

The judge is going way too far in accommodating these terrorists. They should be removed and put in separate rooms with closed circuit television so they can see what's going on. They won't cooperate with their attorney, not even when she debases herself for them. Not even when she demands that all other women debase themselves for them.

To these radical muslims, they will never get a fair trial because we won't accept their religious mandate to kill infidels as a valid defense.

Who was the talented moron who appointed a female attorney to these animals in the first place?
As far as the quality of their trial, they should have the same level of fairness that they afforded the thousands of people who died as a result of their brutality. No more, no less.

 

[George Costanza]

As far as the quality of their trial, they should have the same level of fairness that they afforded the thousands of people who died as a result of their brutality. No more, no less.

As I have previously said on this thread: This, right here, is the main reason I am not, nor ever have been, a conservative.

 

[George Costanza]

Not permtting these terrorists to make a farce of the proceedings is denying them a fair trial?

If there is anything interfering with a fair trial, it's the idiot defense attorney reminding the Court how evil and oppressive these men are by wearing the stupid abeya, and making it worse, by demanding that all women in the courtroom be required to wear an abeya.

Are they getting a speedy trial? How long were they incarcerated prior to trial? In California, a person in custody on a felony charge has a right to a trial within 60 days from the date of their arrest.

Were they afforded the right to counsel at the time of their arrest? When were they (finally) provided counsel in this (these) case(s)?

How were they treated during their pre-trial incarceration? Were they tortured? Were confessions or admissions extracted from them due to torture or, "aggressive interrogation techniques"?

There is a lot more to a fair trial than merely what goes on in the courtroom, although the actual conduct of the trial itself is a large part of it.

They aren't criminals. They are enemy combatants. They are not getting a criminal trial but a military tribunal. They weren't tortured. They were made uncomfortable. They should have been tortured. These vermin should have been broken years ago. It is a shame that they are still defiant. I disagree with the treatment they received. They should have been pistol whipped by a woman in a mini skirt and bikini top on a daily basis. As it is, yes we got intelligence even from the very VERY mild treatment they received. Enough intelligence to enable obama to "get" Bin Laden.

Yet another compassionate conservative weighs in on the subject . . . .

 

[mudwhistle]

As far as the quality of their trial, they should have the same level of fairness that they afforded the thousands of people who died as a result of their brutality. No more, no less.

As I have previously said on this thread: This, right here, is the main reason I am not, nor ever have been, a conservative.

Duly noted.

And that kind of ideology only encourages them.

The only thing they fear is having the tables turned on them. If they knew that we were as ruthless as they are they'd have second thoughts in attacking us. China doesn't have a problem with terrorism because they have a very cruel way of dealing with troublemakers.

 

[G.T.]

As far as the quality of their trial, they should have the same level of fairness that they afforded the thousands of people who died as a result of their brutality. No more, no less.

As I have previously said on this thread: This, right here, is the main reason I am not, nor ever have been, a conservative.

Duly noted.

And that kind of ideology only encourages them.

The only thing they fear is having the tables turned on them. If they knew that we were as ruthless as they are they'd have second thoughts in attacking us. China doesn't have a problem with terrorism because they have a very cruel way of dealing with troublemakers.

Are you for or against cruel punishment?

 

[mudwhistle]

As I have previously said on this thread: This, right here, is the main reason I am not, nor ever have been, a conservative.

Duly noted.

And that kind of ideology only encourages them.

The only thing they fear is having the tables turned on them. If they knew that we were as ruthless as they are they'd have second thoughts in attacking us. China doesn't have a problem with terrorism because they have a very cruel way of dealing with troublemakers.

Are you for or against cruel punishment?

I feel in this case it's nessessary.

You want to end Islamic aggression, hit em hard and hit em where they live. Make the consequences so terrible that they wouldn't dare consider it again.

I don't like violence, but it's a choice between dealing with this disease or just putting up with it till it kills us. Bargaining with them is useless. Best way I know to deal with these demented monsters is send in a monster to disembowel one Hannibal Lector style.

 

[Katzndogz]

GITMO was a good idea, if it wasn't obie wan would have closed it.

Aw come on willow. I was thinking more along the lines of a cold climate. Not warm and fuzzy like GITMO.

Something like Newfoundland. Where your jailers don't even make sense to you. They make you kiss the cod daily. They torture you with screech.

Oh wait! I'm doing a tourism commercial for one of my provinces.

On the serious side, have you heard how these prisoners are treated like gold? 3,000 dead plus and they are treated like they are nothing short of saints?

Wow, kinda makes you want to go terrorist, doesn't it...oh, wait, domestically-grown terrorists are executed out-of-hand, 'specially personally...is that a drone I hear overhead?

These terrorists have to be questioned in a Lazy Boy recliner! It's ridiculous.

 

[G.T.]

Duly noted.

And that kind of ideology only encourages them.

The only thing they fear is having the tables turned on them. If they knew that we were as ruthless as they are they'd have second thoughts in attacking us. China doesn't have a problem with terrorism because they have a very cruel way of dealing with troublemakers.

Are you for or against cruel punishment?

I feel in this case it's nessessary.

You want to end Islamic aggression, hit em hard and hit em where they live. Make the consequences so terrible that they wouldn't dare consider it again.

I don't like violence, but it's a choice between dealing with this disease or just putting up with it till it kills us. Bargaining with them is useless. Best way I know to deal with these demented monsters is send in a monster to disembowel one Hannibal Lector style.

Then you are not a Constitutionalist and shouldn't be lambasting others daily when you feel they perform or believe outside of the Constitution either. But you don't think in those terms because you can't think past your own nose.

Do you believe rights are granted by the constitution, or that the constitution simply establishes that they were granted by God?

If said rights are established by God - you're either riding with them or not - and anything less is a pretty glaring fault in your entire life's philosophy.

You really need to think these things through a little better, it looks like.

 

[Katzndogz]

Are they getting a speedy trial? How long were they incarcerated prior to trial? In California, a person in custody on a felony charge has a right to a trial within 60 days from the date of their arrest.

Were they afforded the right to counsel at the time of their arrest? When were they (finally) provided counsel in this (these) case(s)?

How were they treated during their pre-trial incarceration? Were they tortured? Were confessions or admissions extracted from them due to torture or, "aggressive interrogation techniques"?

There is a lot more to a fair trial than merely what goes on in the courtroom, although the actual conduct of the trial itself is a large part of it.

They aren't criminals. They are enemy combatants. They are not getting a criminal trial but a military tribunal. They weren't tortured. They were made uncomfortable. They should have been tortured. These vermin should have been broken years ago. It is a shame that they are still defiant. I disagree with the treatment they received. They should have been pistol whipped by a woman in a mini skirt and bikini top on a daily basis. As it is, yes we got intelligence even from the very VERY mild treatment they received. Enough intelligence to enable obama to "get" Bin Laden.

Yet another compassionate conservative weighs in on the subject . . . .

I never claimed to be compassionate! Especially to terrorists. If they were treated as they should have been treated, they'd be totally Stockholm Syndromed by now.

 

[Salt Jones]

Btw, Obama is releasing high level detainees in Afghanistan as per an agreement he signed last week.

At least 1 in 4 go back to fighting.

Smart move Obama.

Link to the 1 in 4 statement?

 

[jillian]

Not permtting these terrorists to make a farce of the proceedings is denying them a fair trial?

If there is anything interfering with a fair trial, it's the idiot defense attorney reminding the Court how evil and oppressive these men are by wearing the stupid abeya, and making it worse, by demanding that all women in the courtroom be required to wear an abeya.

It is only a farce if we allow them to degrade our system by not following our own rules. Then we're no better than they are.

The defense attorney has every right, and is obligated, to diligently represent her clients. The right to counsel doesn't turn on whether you like the defendant. In fact, it's more important, as with the right to free speech, that we defend the most onerous. Pleasant people and things don't require protection. While I diagree with the attorney asking that women dress as she did, (and in fact, i don't believe she SHOULD dress as she is, but that's another discussion), it is kind of 'no harm, no foul' since the judge wasn't going to order that in any way, shape or form.

 

[Salt Jones]

Duly noted.

And that kind of ideology only encourages them.

The only thing they fear is having the tables turned on them. If they knew that we were as ruthless as they are they'd have second thoughts in attacking us. China doesn't have a problem with terrorism because they have a very cruel way of dealing with troublemakers.

Are you for or against cruel punishment?

I feel in this case it's nessessary.

You want to end Islamic aggression, hit em hard and hit em where they live. Make the consequences so terrible that they wouldn't dare consider it again.

I don't like violence, but it's a choice between dealing with this disease or just putting up with it till it kills us. Bargaining with them is useless. Best way I know to deal with these demented monsters is send in a monster to disembowel one Hannibal Lector style.

ANd who would be the demented monster to their kids and supporters? When they send a monster to disembowel our monster, who do we send?

 

[Katzndogz]

Btw, Obama is releasing high level detainees in Afghanistan as per an agreement he signed last week.

At least 1 in 4 go back to fighting.

Smart move Obama.

Link to the 1 in 4 statement?

DNI Says 1 in 4 Prisoners Released From Guantanamo Bay Return to Terrorism - Sara Sorcher - NationalJournal.com
















































































Play of the Day!
Santorum's Endorsement

CONGRESS
Who Takes Lugar's Slot?

National Security
State of the War

POLITICAL CARTOONS
Morin's Animated World
NATIONAL SECURITY

DNI Says 1 in 4 Prisoners Released From Guantanamo Bay Return to Terrorism


Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services

By Sara Sorcher

Updated: December 8, 2010 | 11:46 a.m.
December 8, 2010 | 11:05 a.m.


John Moore/Getty Images


A U.S. military guard tower stands on the perimeter of a detainee camp at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.



About 1 in 4 detainees released from the Guantanamo Bay military prison are either confirmed or suspected to have resumed terrorist activities, according to a new report from the director of national intelligence. The report will provide new ammunition to opponents of the Obama administration's flagging effort to close the prison.

The report finds that 598 detainees had been transferred by the Pentagon from Guantanamo Bay into the custody of other countries as of October 1. Of those, 150 former detainees have been “confirmed or suspected of reengaging in terrorist or insurgent activities.”

Of those 150, according to the report, the intelligence community has determined that 13 are dead, 54 are in custody, and 83 remain at large.