Are We At War Or Not?

[tigerbob]

You really have no idea how trials work, do you? You don't just get to stand up in the middle of the room and shout whatever you'd like.

Really? Holy shit!

And there was me thinking they could stand on a table and yell for as long as they liked. Fuck me, I've learned something today. Thank God you were here. Boston Legal makes so much more sense all of a sudden.

Well, the idea that they can stand on a table and shout out all day is the only way this whole "they're just going to grandstand" crap makes any sense. Thanks for admitting you already knew your argument was bullshit.

No. It's just the only way it makes sense to you.

You might want to look it up, but grandstanding is behavior that is meant to impress others. It doesn't mean you have to literally be standing.

Do you know what impress means? It means to significantly affect someone either mentally or emotionally. It doesn't mean you have to shout.

So, "grandstanding" is behaving in a way that is meant to significantly affect the opinions or emotions of those watching, without necessarily either standing or shouting.

And how does one grandstand in court? One gets one's lawyer to ask questions that provide the opportunity to raise emotionally-charged political points.

And (get ready for a surprise) you can do all this in a normal speaking voice while sitting down!

And I had to explain all that to you just because you disappeared up your own ass about a word rather than addressing the issue. Try looking this stuff up yourself next time. Now, either stay on topic or fuck off and hump somebody else's leg.

 

[tigerbob]

The far left defense attorneys are licking their collective chops over this one.

Why would Obama allow such a risky trial to take place - it wasn't necessary.

The military court was in place and ready to go.

Very troubling...

Obama has a problem with gitmo, and wants to bring the whole episode to a close one way or the other. At the same time, he wants to be able to stand up and say to the world "Look, I'm really trying to be fair".

For better or worse, given as you say the circumstances of arrest and detainment, GWB left him with 3 options.

1. Execute them quietly. (He can't do that - it's too high profile now)
2. Military trial. (He won't do that - he wants to score points and a military trial is too rigid / not sufficiently visibly altruistic)
3. Cut them loose (He can't do that - he wants a second term)

He didn't like the cards he was dealt so he pulled another one out of his sleeve. He had a tough decision to make, and he's looked for a way to duck it.

False dilemma. Those never were the only available choices.

Oh, yeah, my bad. Community service. Forgot that one.

 

[Polk]

Really? Holy shit!

And there was me thinking they could stand on a table and yell for as long as they liked. Fuck me, I've learned something today. Thank God you were here. Boston Legal makes so much more sense all of a sudden.

Well, the idea that they can stand on a table and shout out all day is the only way this whole "they're just going to grandstand" crap makes any sense. Thanks for admitting you already knew your argument was bullshit.

No. It's just the only way it makes sense to you.

You might want to look it up, but grandstanding is behavior that is meant to impress others. It doesn't mean you have to literally be standing.

Do you know what impress means? It means to significantly affect someone either mentally or emotionally. It doesn't mean you have to shout.

So, "grandstanding" is behaving in a way that is meant to significantly affect the opinions or emotions of those watching, without necessarily either standing or shouting.

And how does one grandstand in court? One gets one's lawyer to ask questions that provide the opportunity to raise emotionally-charged political points.

And (get ready for a surprise) you can do all this in a normal speaking voice while sitting down!

And I had to explain all that to you just because you disappeared up your own ass about a word rather than addressing the issue. Try looking this stuff up yourself next time. Now, either stay on topic or fuck off and hump somebody else's leg.

If asking an emotionally-charged question counts as grandstanding, then that's the showcase of every trial ever.

 

[Sinatra]

Really? Holy shit!

And there was me thinking they could stand on a table and yell for as long as they liked. Fuck me, I've learned something today. Thank God you were here. Boston Legal makes so much more sense all of a sudden.

Well, the idea that they can stand on a table and shout out all day is the only way this whole "they're just going to grandstand" crap makes any sense. Thanks for admitting you already knew your argument was bullshit.

No. It's just the only way it makes sense to you.

You might want to look it up, but grandstanding is behavior that is meant to impress others. It doesn't mean you have to literally be standing.

Do you know what impress means? It means to significantly affect someone either mentally or emotionally. It doesn't mean you have to shout.

So, "grandstanding" is behaving in a way that is meant to significantly affect the opinions or emotions of those watching, without necessarily either standing or shouting.

And how does one grandstand in court? One gets one's lawyer to ask questions that provide the opportunity to raise emotionally-charged political points.

And (get ready for a surprise) you can do all this in a normal speaking voice while sitting down!

And I had to explain all that to you just because you disappeared up your own ass about a word rather than addressing the issue. Try looking this stuff up yourself next time. Now, either stay on topic or fuck off and hump somebody else's leg.

Great response - and this is what is gonna go down with these idiotic public trials...

 

[Polk]

Obama has a problem with gitmo, and wants to bring the whole episode to a close one way or the other. At the same time, he wants to be able to stand up and say to the world "Look, I'm really trying to be fair".

For better or worse, given as you say the circumstances of arrest and detainment, GWB left him with 3 options.

1. Execute them quietly. (He can't do that - it's too high profile now)
2. Military trial. (He won't do that - he wants to score points and a military trial is too rigid / not sufficiently visibly altruistic)
3. Cut them loose (He can't do that - he wants a second term)

He didn't like the cards he was dealt so he pulled another one out of his sleeve. He had a tough decision to make, and he's looked for a way to duck it.

False dilemma. Those never were the only available choices.

Oh, yeah, my bad. Community service. Forgot that one.

No. A trial in criminal court was always an option. In fact, it's the most obvious option, as it has been used dozens of times before.

 

[Darkwind]

Was the 1993 WTC bombing an act of war?

There is no guarantee of a similar outcome.

What is the goal here? Do you want to see a conviction of this individual or do you have other agendas?

 

[Contumacious]

For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?

KSM was brought into US soil and into federal court jurisdiction.

The US UNCONSTITUTIONALLY invaded Iraq and AfPaq. Congress has never declared war on those countries. There was never a reason to do so. Those folks are the victims of a criminal Prez and his foreign policy.

Of couse KSM and his comrades are not going to get a trial - the administration is going through the motions in order to create the illusion that they were executed after due process of law was extended to them.

The case is going to be assigned to a federal judge who more than likely will be a zionist - a member of the good ol' boy network who understands how the game is played. He will be allowed to chastised the CIA, the military but at the end KSM and his compatriots must be pronounced guilty as charged and sentenced to death.

.and so it goes.

.

Take your anti-American Bullshit and Cram it up your ass sideways.

No anti-American Bullshit there.


But there is plenty of anti-warmonger, anti-neocrazy allegations.

There is nothing Unconstitutional about capturing KSM.

The US had no right to PROVOKE an attack my meddling in the internal affairs of other nations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is nothing Unconstitutional about attacking Al Quaeda in Afghanistan.

If I remember correctly Congress has never declared war on Afghanistan. Nor is there evidence that Afpak attacked us.

And there is nothing Unconstitutional about the invasion of Iraq.

No evidence that Iraq has attacked us or that it was a threat. No constitutional authority to invade a country just because the Prez is a low life scumbag.

And you can't prove anything Criminal about any recent presidents.

Just to you because you are a naive fucktard.

.

 

[tigerbob]

False dilemma. Those never were the only available choices.

Oh, yeah, my bad. Community service. Forgot that one.

No. A trial in criminal court was always an option. In fact, it's the most obvious option, as it has been used dozens of times before.

Sinatra already covered why it's not a viable option (if one is to have a chance of securing a conviction), as did I, so I'm not going over it again.

 

[Sinatra]

Oh, yeah, my bad. Community service. Forgot that one.

No. A trial in criminal court was always an option. In fact, it's the most obvious option, as it has been used dozens of times before.

Sinatra already covered why it's not a viable option (if one is to have a chance of securing a conviction), as did I, so I'm not going over it again.

Remarkable how some in here fail to see the forest for the trees...

 

[SFC Ollie]

KSM was brought into US soil and into federal court jurisdiction.

The US UNCONSTITUTIONALLY invaded Iraq and AfPaq. Congress has never declared war on those countries. There was never a reason to do so. Those folks are the victims of a criminal Prez and his foreign policy.

Of couse KSM and his comrades are not going to get a trial - the administration is going through the motions in order to create the illusion that they were executed after due process of law was extended to them.

The case is going to be assigned to a federal judge who more than likely will be a zionist - a member of the good ol' boy network who understands how the game is played. He will be allowed to chastised the CIA, the military but at the end KSM and his compatriots must be pronounced guilty as charged and sentenced to death.

.and so it goes.

.

Take your anti-American Bullshit and Cram it up your ass sideways.

No anti-American Bullshit there.


But there is plenty of anti-warmonger, anti-neocrazy allegations.




The US had no right to PROVOKE an attack my meddling in the internal affairs of other nations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





If I remember correctly Congress has never declared war on Afghanistan. Nor is there evidence that Afpak attacked us.

And there is nothing Unconstitutional about the invasion of Iraq.

No evidence that Iraq has attacked us or that it was a threat. No constitutional authority to invade a country just because the Prez is a low life scumbag.

And you can't prove anything Criminal about any recent presidents.

Just to you because you are a naive fucktard.

.

I guess with some people you have to be more exact. Where is your proof that anyof you empty accusations are true. Why has not the super majority Democrat congress investigated Bush some more? They only spent a year (All of 2007) trying to find something to charge him with.

You assholes are all the same, just can't see past your American hating ass.

 

[tigerbob]

Well, the idea that they can stand on a table and shout out all day is the only way this whole "they're just going to grandstand" crap makes any sense. Thanks for admitting you already knew your argument was bullshit.

No. It's just the only way it makes sense to you.

You might want to look it up, but grandstanding is behavior that is meant to impress others. It doesn't mean you have to literally be standing.

Do you know what impress means? It means to significantly affect someone either mentally or emotionally. It doesn't mean you have to shout.

So, "grandstanding" is behaving in a way that is meant to significantly affect the opinions or emotions of those watching, without necessarily either standing or shouting.

And how does one grandstand in court? One gets one's lawyer to ask questions that provide the opportunity to raise emotionally-charged political points.

And (get ready for a surprise) you can do all this in a normal speaking voice while sitting down!

And I had to explain all that to you just because you disappeared up your own ass about a word rather than addressing the issue. Try looking this stuff up yourself next time. Now, either stay on topic or fuck off and hump somebody else's leg.

If asking an emotionally-charged question counts as grandstanding, then that's the showcase of every trial ever.

See the difference between what I posted and what you understood? Rearranging the words makes the meaning different, y'know?

 

[Sinatra]

No. It's just the only way it makes sense to you.

You might want to look it up, but grandstanding is behavior that is meant to impress others. It doesn't mean you have to literally be standing.

Do you know what impress means? It means to significantly affect someone either mentally or emotionally. It doesn't mean you have to shout.

So, "grandstanding" is behaving in a way that is meant to significantly affect the opinions or emotions of those watching, without necessarily either standing or shouting.

And how does one grandstand in court? One gets one's lawyer to ask questions that provide the opportunity to raise emotionally-charged political points.

And (get ready for a surprise) you can do all this in a normal speaking voice while sitting down!

And I had to explain all that to you just because you disappeared up your own ass about a word rather than addressing the issue. Try looking this stuff up yourself next time. Now, either stay on topic or fuck off and hump somebody else's leg.

If asking an emotionally-charged question counts as grandstanding, then that's the showcase of every trial ever.

See the difference between what I posted and what you understood? Rearranging the words makes the meaning different, y'know?

You are dismantling their arguements at every turn.

Well done...

 

[tigerbob]

No. A trial in criminal court was always an option. In fact, it's the most obvious option, as it has been used dozens of times before.

Sinatra already covered why it's not a viable option (if one is to have a chance of securing a conviction), as did I, so I'm not going over it again.

Remarkable how some in here fail to see the forest for the trees...

That can't be right. He was just done telling me how he understands the legal process and I don't.

You really have no idea how trials work, do you? You don't just get to stand up in the middle of the room and shout whatever you'd like.

 

[Sinatra]

Sinatra already covered why it's not a viable option (if one is to have a chance of securing a conviction), as did I, so I'm not going over it again.

Remarkable how some in here fail to see the forest for the trees...

That can't be right. He was just done telling me how he understands the legal process and I don't.

You really have no idea how trials work, do you? You don't just get to stand up in the middle of the room and shout whatever you'd like.

Well, with all due respect - it appears clear this "Polk" is lacking in actual understanding of the subject matter, though that does in no way hinder them from proving that fact with every post - an all too common practice if forums such as this...

 

[Mike458877]

Are We At War Or Not?

Hell yes we are at war!

And it's a damn shame that this white house cannot understand that we are!

Mike

 

[Sinatra]

Now Holder is displaying an exaggerated respect for the work of career federal prosecutors in New York, also when it fits his ideological predispositions. He is asking them to make the case against five 9/11 conspirators, in a circus atmosphere, with an uncertain chain of evidence (gathered on a battlefield), under a cloud of torture allegations that Holder himself has encouraged.

There is one serious argument for this course: that a civilian court will provide greater legitimacy for the imposition of the death penalty than a military tribunal. But the guilt of these terrorists is not in question. And it is difficult to imagine that those repulsed or impressed by Khalid Sheik Mohammed's confessed crimes will care much about the procedures surrounding his sentencing.

In exchange for a marginal public relations advantage, America will be subjected to the airing of intelligence sources and methods, to the posturing of mass murderers fully aware of their terrorist star power, to the possibility of mistrial and procedural acquittal, and to an increased threat of revenge attacks against New York City. Holder seemed to concede this last complication by asserting that New York is "hardened" against possible terrorism. If I were a New Yorker, that would fall into the category of chilly comfort.

In the end, Holder made a decision memorable for its incoherence. He declared American military tribunals constitutional and appropriate for some terrorists -- then awarded 9/11 mastermind Mohammed a presumption of innocence and the full O.J. Simpson treatment.

Rest of the article here:

RealClearPolitics - Eric Holder's Grave Mistake

 

[bodecea]

Well, I don't think anyone in the White house has made that determination yet. Are we at war? Hmmm???? I think Mr Obama will have to get back to you on that one. He'll have a half dozen briefings followed by a date night or two. Then he'll have to think about it for a few months before he has another series of briefings, and this time he might have General McChrystal attend one of them. Then after thinking about those briefings, he'll let us know when he might have a decision.

Facts are that the US Congress passed the Military Commissions act of 2006 for a reason, And that was to satisfy the Supreme court so we could go ahead and prosecute these animals in a Military tribunal. Mr Obama figures he could gain some points by stopping that. Someone needs to tell him its not a fucking game.

Really? The President makes that call now?

 

[Sinatra]

Nonetheless, I think the decision to send Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his buddies to a civilian trial is a travesty.

Ultimately, the disagreement is one of first principles. If we are at war, then the rules of war apply. The fact that this is a war unlike others we've fought should not mean that it isn't a war at all.

Don't tell that to Obama. He's made it clear that he doesn't see the threat as an unconventional war but as a conventional law-enforcement problem. The attorney general insists that 9/11 is a matter for civilian courts. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says attacks such as 9/11 should be thought of as "man-caused disasters." Her top priority after the Fort Hood shootings was to bring Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan to justice - a fine answer for a law-enforcement official but not from someone charged with protecting the homeland. The war on terror itself has morphed into "overseas contingency operations."


Rest of article here:

RealClearPolitics - 9/11 Terrorists Should Face Military Tribunal

 

[Contumacious]

You assholes are all the same, just can't see past your American hating ass.

naive motherfuckers are something else:

" Why were U.S. officials so certain that Saddam had WMD? Because they knew that the United States was one of the nations that had supplied them to him. The entire experience will ultimately go down as one of the biggest setups in history. Give a dictator WMD, encourage him to use them against others, and then invade his country for possessing them.

Certain that U.S. soldiers would find the infamous WMD (a “slam dunk” as CIA director George Tenet told the president), the United States invaded Iraq supposedly for the purpose of saving America and the world from an imminent attack by Saddam Hussein. As soon as the WMD were found, U.S. officials would make dramatic announcements, with the WMD in the background, stating that they had saved America and the world from an imminent WMD attack by Saddam Hussein. Budgets for the CIA and the military-industrial complex would know no bounds. Medals of Freedom would be pinned on the chests of countless governmental officials.

But something went wrong along the way. What all the brilliant and calculating U.S. politicians and bureaucrats never figured on was that Saddam Hussein had already “disarmed” some time after the Persian Gulf War, possibly as early as 1991. They never dreamed that he could be telling the truth when he repeatedly told the world that he had, in fact, destroyed his WMD. They never believed that he might in fact have complied with the UN resolutions requiring him to disarm. They never thought for a minute that Saddam Hussein had in fact rid Iraq of the WMD that the United States and other Western nations had delivered to him during the 1980s. “disarmed” some time after the Persian Gulf War, possibly as early as 1991. They never dreamed that he could be telling the truth when he repeatedly told the world that he had, in fact, destroyed his WMD. "

.

 

[Annie]

Was the 1993 WTC bombing an act of war?

Yes. Where was Sheikh Omar and his merry men arrested? Which organization gathered and maintained the chain of evidence?