Dick Cheney should really stop playing the blame game.

[Coyote]

Unlawful combatants don't have rights.

This is probably a point where we have a fundamental disagreement but here goes. EVERYONE has rights. There is nothing that I am aware of, that specifically limits the fundamental rights we believe in to only American citizens. If these are rights we truely believe in as fundamentally important, then they apply to everyone.

The question isn't so much the underwear bomber because his crime was obvious.

Suppose based on intelligence information he was picked up in Yemen while plotting. How is a civilian court supposed to prove its case? It can't subpoena his buddies in Yemen. It can't disclose where they got the information, for the arrest since that source will then be compromised.

In what you outline - that is really difficult to say. In that case they might not choose to try him in a civilian court. One worrisome aspect though...is can justice be truely served because it depends on hearsay? And there have been some gross miscarriages of justice in people picked up, tortured and consequently found innocent based on just such hearsay. I do not think all cases are appropriate for a civilian court but in so far as they can be they should be.

You do make a good point though.

Civilian courts are geared for handling a crime after it has been committed, not for thwarting terrorist attacks on an on-going basis.

I don't know if you can use that reasoning as the basis for deciding what venue the person should be tried under. One thing is clear to me though. Terrorism is nothing new - it's been going on and directed against our interests for some time and we have not been using military tribunals. Why do we suddenly put it all within that venue?

We are in an intelligence war. Information is critical. Almost any information revealed to terrorists or their lawyers involving sources, methods, practices, of getting intelligence, can than be used by terrorists to stop authorities from thwarting further terrorist attacks.

My main concern is the protection of ameican civilians from unlawful combatants such as Al Qaida. That is better handled in this case by a military tribunal than by civilian courts.

I respect your point of view, even if I don't totally agree with it. I see the rule of law and justice as paramount though I do agree not all cases are suitable for a civilian court.

Perhaps it is good that we are different because it takes all kinds to build the sort of country and values worth defendiing (in my opinion).

 

[Coyote]

Plea bargain? He was ready to kill himself for his fanatical beliefs. you think he cares about a plea bargain.

Military tribunals are within the law. They allow for terrorists to be tried, while maintaining the secrecy needed in this intelligence war.

Libs do not get it.

They just don't.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Liability again.

Too bad conservatives don't believe in the rule of law.

 

[Vast LWC]

That's your proof that most Western intel agencies agree U.S. actions created more terrorist attacks than anyone [sic] in modern history?
Is that some kind of joke? Is that supposed to be serious?

Were these the same intel agencies that all agreed Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction?

So, you're saying that there have been no terrorist attacks during the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Or are you saying that those terrorist attacks did not happen as a result of the Bush administrations invasion of those nations?

Because either would be a very odd statement.

 

[Liability]

Libs do not get it.

They just don't.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Liability again.

Too bad conservatives don't believe in the rule of law.

It is conservatives who DO believe in the rule of law. It is you liberals who are trampling the rule of law as well as the actual purpose and intent of our Constitution.

 

[AmericasBrave58]

Responsibility:
9/11--Clinton
7 years of no domestic attacks, al Waeda operatives dead or in jail--Bush
Near miss where "the system worked"--Obama.

Any questions?

ROFL.

Is this meant to be sarcastic?

Looks like he is flipping the Bird!!! at them.

 

[Vast LWC]

I agree that Cheney should shut the hell up just as Carter and Clinton should have kept their opinions to themselves during the Bush years. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the Democrats did it with impunity doesn't mean the Republicans should lower themselves to that level.

Too late.

While I don't agree with Obama's politics, I do support my president. Instead of sharpshooting, he needs constructive criticism. I seriously doubt we'll ever see that sort of maturity from any party.

We need a third party.

I agree, though I don't think it should be a far-right party like the Tea-Baggers.

I'm thinking a semi-moderate, rational third party that has strict rules about taking bribes in the form of contributions.

 

[Vast LWC]

Plea bargain? He was ready to kill himself for his fanatical beliefs. you think he cares about a plea bargain.

Military tribunals are within the law. They allow for terrorists to be tried, while maintaining the secrecy needed in this intelligence war.

Right, so, why would the subject give any information at all, if he wouldn't give it to save his own ass?

Perhaps you all are suggesting that we should sink to the level of the terrorists ourselves instead of actually having a legal process?

Hell, maybe we should just assassinate their families when they commit an attack. That would do that trick, wouldn't it?

Or hell, maybe we should just open up some Gulags and fill them with political prisoners.

Welcome to the United States of Amerika. Nice work whackos.

 

[Coyote]

I am not interested in your uninformed and irrelevant opinions about "how well" the civilian criminal justice system has worked. I don't even know what that means. It "works" if there's a conviction? It has failed if there's an acquittal? Jeez, that's stupid.

That's good because it appears that your reading comprehension skills are about as "uninformed and irrelevant" as you seem to think my opinions are.

Nowhere did I say it "works if there's a conviction". In fact, I specifically pointed out that it is able to hold a trial without comprising legitimate secrets or national security or the rule of law. If I am wrong please point out a specific example or two where secrets have been released or national security compromised.

I AM concerned with the FACT that when a person is charged with a crime in the civilian criminal Justice system here in the U.S.A., that person is automatically insulated. He is TOLD that he has a by-God RIGHT to remain silent. And right at that instant the conclusion becomes inescapable. It is a seriously stupid and easily avoided MISTAKE to confuse a captured illegal enemy combatant with a mere criminal.

If I were making the argument that every terrorist should be tried in a civilian court, you might have a point. But I'm not.

Criminals commit crimes. Vile and hideous crimes, sometimes, but JUST crimes, nonetheless.

Illegal enemy combatants -- in this case, terrorists -- do not JUST commit "crimes." They commit ACTS of WAR.

That is debatable and probably deternined on a case by case basis because terrorism is such a poorly defined term as is the term "illegal enemy combatents" which appeared virtually out of nowhere to include all kinds of people caught up in broad sweeps.

I WANT all people charged with mere crimes to get their Constitutional right to remain silent.

I do NOT WANT captured illegal enemy combatants -- terrorists -- to even THINK we will tolerate their refusal to give up the information we demand from their captured mouths.

Yes, LOTS of folks talk when they are first arrested before they lawyer up. But the information we might need from the underpants bomber is likely to include much more in the way of DETAILS on minor points than can be obtained from an arrested criminal suspect prior to his arraignment. (There are time constraints. Suspects must get to court promptly.) And once the right to counsel is invoked, or once it attaches by operation of law, a suspect may not be questioned outside the presence of his lawyer.

How much time elapsed between the capture of this person and the decision to try him in a civilian court?

It gets a LOT more complicated from there. What if the lawyer advises the underpants bomber that the U.S. prosecutor isn't promising him enough in exchange for sharing information? The lawyer would, at the juncture, probably advise his client NOT to speak anymore to the "government." That is a really bad outcome when we need to know what the fucker knows.

Suppose the stupid motherfucker wants to go to trial? In the case of the underpants bomber, it appears that the government DID have his name and some intel about him before he even was permitted to take that flight. So, the lawyer will probably insist on GETTING that to review in preparation for the trial. The government might just wish to decline to share OUR intel with a terrorist. But the Court might then have to tell the government, "Pick your poison. You don't have to give him state secrets, but then you cannot prosecute him. OR, if you really want to proceed with this prosecution, then you HAVE to give him his discovery material." Why on EARTH would we want to put ourselves in THAT stupid position when there's no real need to go there? Military tribunal time.

Maybe because he isn't such a hot shot high level terrorist and there just plain isn't that much to get from him? As I said - trials have been carried out in civilian courts in such a way that secrets are preserved. Clearly it can be done and has. These people in charge of national security are not stupid people however much you may hate their politics and none of them have indicated that they feel all terrorist suspects should be tried in civilian courts.

The President said we are at war and he said it in the context of this very terrorist attack attempt. So, why on EARTH are we doing this crap to ourselves?

Maybe because you DON'T know everything...ever considered that?

 

[Liability]

I am not interested in your uninformed and irrelevant opinions about "how well" the civilian criminal justice system has worked. I don't even know what that means. It "works" if there's a conviction? It has failed if there's an acquittal? Jeez, that's stupid.

That's good because it appears that your reading comprehension skills are about as "uninformed and irrelevant" as you seem to think my opinions are.

There is no such "appearance." You're just goofy.

Nowhere did I say it "works if there's a conviction". In fact, I specifically pointed out that it is able to hold a trial without comprising legitimate secrets or national security or the rule of law. If I am wrong please point out a specific example or two where secrets have been released or national security compromised.

We don't KNOW if a FAIR trial can be held without giving some of these fuckers their "discovery." Forget the underpants fucker for a second. What of the schmucks held for YEARS at Gitmo before even being "charged" with any "crimes?" Did you ever hear of the right to a speedy trial? Haven't they all had their rights denied already? When they spoke, was it after having been afforded NO Miranda warnings? Was it after being subjected to interrogation techniques that denied them their right to remain silent? Did they have attorneys promptly appointed to represent their legal interests? Are THEY going to be denied the discovery in EVERY ONE of THEIR cases?

If so, is that fair? Is it "just?" Is it "right?" Is THIS the kind of "Justice" you think we stand for? If not, then what the fuck are we doing here?

What if they DO get a Judge to say "Look. If this is a criminal matter, then they have had so many of their rights violated and denied that it is now impossible to provide them with a fair trial. Case dismissed!" In that case, do you support returning them home to the warm embrace of their good buddies in al qaeda? Or, if you find that to be a remarkably ridiculous thing to even consider, then what do we do with these guys at that point? Ignore the determination of the court and just hold them anyway? Wasn't that what we were alredy DOING? Do you support using our courts as a stage prop?

I AM concerned with the FACT that when a person is charged with a crime in the civilian criminal Justice system here in the U.S.A., that person is automatically insulated. He is TOLD that he has a by-God RIGHT to remain silent. And right at that instant the conclusion becomes inescapable. It is a seriously stupid and easily avoided MISTAKE to confuse a captured illegal enemy combatant with a mere criminal.

If I were making the argument that every terrorist should be tried in a civilian court, you might have a point. But I'm not.

So WHICH terrorists get the benefit of a civilian court trial in your world? On what basis do you draw the distinctions between who gets a Court trial and who doesn't?

That is debatable and probably deternined on a case by case basis because terrorism is such a poorly defined term as is the term "illegal enemy combatents" which appeared virtually out of nowhere to include all kinds of people caught up in broad sweeps.

What is your evidence for the claim that "the term 'illegal enemy combatents' . . . appeared virtually out of nowhere to include all kinds of people caught up in broad sweeps?" And, by the way, the term "illegal enemy combatant" most certainly did not out of nowhere. You are displaying your own ignorance.

How much time elapsed between the capture of this person and the decision to try him in a civilian court?

He was immediately arrested and charged with crimes. He was then quickly indicted, again for alleged "crimes." What difference does it make how long it took, since it was so damn fast? The better question is, "WHY hasn't the President of the United States vetoed that determination and directed that this fucker is to be held in Gitmo pending a military commission?"

It gets a LOT more complicated from there. What if the lawyer advises the underpants bomber that the U.S. prosecutor isn't promising him enough in exchange for sharing information? The lawyer would, at the juncture, probably advise his client NOT to speak anymore to the "government." That is a really bad outcome when we need to know what the fucker knows.

Suppose the stupid motherfucker wants to go to trial? In the case of the underpants bomber, it appears that the government DID have his name and some intel about him before he even was permitted to take that flight. So, the lawyer will probably insist on GETTING that to review in preparation for the trial. The government might just wish to decline to share OUR intel with a terrorist. But the Court might then have to tell the government, "Pick your poison. You don't have to give him state secrets, but then you cannot prosecute him. OR, if you really want to proceed with this prosecution, then you HAVE to give him his discovery material." Why on EARTH would we want to put ourselves in THAT stupid position when there's no real need to go there? Military tribunal time.

Maybe because he isn't such a hot shot high level terrorist and there just plain isn't that much to get from him? As I said - trials have been carried out in civilian courts in such a way that secrets are preserved. Clearly it can be done and has. These people in charge of national security are not stupid people however much you may hate their politics and none of them have indicated that they feel all terrorist suspects should be tried in civilian courts.

WHAT??? He was "hot shot" enough to be on the list of people being investigated. He was "hot shot" enough to get the assignment to sacrifice himself in a suicide-homicide bombing of a civilian passenger jet. Not "that much" to GET???? How about each and every fucking detail of who he knew, where they met, when they met, who else was there, what was said, who else is HERE, who else is coming, what other plans does he have ANY knowledge or information on???? Etc., etc., etc. Are you for REAL?? Are you fucking kidding???

The President said we are at war and he said it in the context of this very terrorist attack attempt. So, why on EARTH are we doing this crap to ourselves?

Maybe because you DON'T know everything...ever considered that?

Sure, you moron. I am merely pointing out that YOU sure as hell don't know ANYTHING. You liberoidals are fucking all severely retarded. You really are a tool.

Nice dodge on the question, though. The scumbag with the charred boi-panties committed (attempted to commit) acts of WAR. The President has noted -- finally, in a meaningful way -- that we ARE at war. So WHY is he treating this illegal, non-uniformed enemy combatant (one caught literally in the act) as a mere criminal instead of as a captured fucking enemy saboteur?

 

[Coyote]

I am not interested in your uninformed and irrelevant opinions about "how well" the civilian criminal justice system has worked. I don't even know what that means. It "works" if there's a conviction? It has failed if there's an acquittal? Jeez, that's stupid.

That's good because it appears that your reading comprehension skills are about as "uninformed and irrelevant" as you seem to think my opinions are.

There is no such "appearance." You're just goofy.



We don't KNOW if a FAIR trial can be held without giving some of these fuckers their "discovery." Forget the underpants fucker for a second. What of the schmucks held for YEARS at Gitmo before even being "charged" with any "crimes?" Did you ever hear of the right to a speedy trial? Haven't they all had their rights denied already? When they spoke, was it after having been afforded NO Miranda warnings? Was it after being subjected to interrogation techniques that denied them their right to remain silent? Did they have attorneys promptly appointed to represent their legal interests? Are THEY going to be denied the discovery in EVERY ONE of THEIR cases?

If so, is that fair? Is it "just?" Is it "right?" Is THIS the kind of "Justice" you think we stand for? If not, then what the fuck are we doing here?

What if they DO get a Judge to say "Look. If this is a criminal matter, then they have had so many of their rights violated and denied that it is now impossible to provide them with a fair trial. Case dismissed!" In that case, do you support returning them home to the warm embrace of their good buddies in al qaeda? Or, if you find that to be a remarkably ridiculous thing to even consider, then what do we do with these guys at that point? Ignore the determination of the court and just hold them anyway? Wasn't that what we were alredy DOING? Do you support using our courts as a stage prop?

So. To cut to the chase. You can't answer the question and provide me with any examples where national security has been compromised in any way in these trials?

So WHICH terrorists get the benefit of a civilian court trial in your world? On what basis do you draw the distinctions between who gets a Court trial and who doesn't?

Hell if I know. But apparently - they don't all fall under the jurisdiction of military tribunals, as specified by the tribunals themselves.

What is your evidence for the claim that "the term 'illegal enemy combatents' . . . appeared virtually out of nowhere to include all kinds of people caught up in broad sweeps?" And, by the way, the term "illegal enemy combatant" most certainly did not out of nowhere. You are displaying your own ignorance.

"Enemy combatents" became a convenient label to avoid complying with the Geneva conventions.

He was immediately arrested and charged with crimes. He was then quickly indicted, again for alleged "crimes." What difference does it make how long it took, since it was so damn fast? The better question is, "WHY hasn't the President of the United States vetoed that determination and directed that this fucker is to be held in Gitmo pending a military commission?"

Because maybe that isn't where it belongs.

WHAT??? He was "hot shot" enough to be on the list of people being investigated. He was "hot shot" enough to get the assignment to sacrifice himself in a suicide-homicide bombing of a civilian passenger jet. Not "that much" to GET???? How about each and every fucking detail of who he knew, where they met, when they met, who else was there, what was said, who else is HERE, who else is coming, what other plans does he have ANY knowledge or information on???? Etc., etc., etc. Are you for REAL?? Are you fucking kidding???

You don't have to be "hot shot" or high up to be selected to kill yourself. You ever notice that the masterminds are never on that list?

Sure, you moron. I am merely pointing out that YOU sure as hell don't know ANYTHING. You liberoidals are fucking all severely retarded. You really are a tool.

Nice dodge on the question, though. The scumbag with the charred boi-panties committed (attempted to commit) acts of WAR. The President has noted -- finally, in a meaningful way -- that we ARE at war. So WHY is he treating this illegal, non-uniformed enemy combatant (one caught literally in the act) as a mere criminal instead of as a captured fucking enemy saboteur?

Moron. Retarded. Blah blah blah. The President has consistently said we are at war with Al Queda. You guys seem to have hearing problems in addition to your reading comprehension problems

 

[The Rabbi]

That's your proof that most Western intel agencies agree U.S. actions created more terrorist attacks than anyone [sic] in modern history?
Is that some kind of joke? Is that supposed to be serious?

Were these the same intel agencies that all agreed Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction?

So, you're saying that there have been no terrorist attacks during the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Or are you saying that those terrorist attacks did not happen as a result of the Bush administrations invasion of those nations?

Because either would be a very odd statement.

Do you have issues with reading comprehension? English not your native language? I didnt say either of those thigns. I asked a question.

 

[Claudette]

Bush was in office,, and before him Clinton,, so if obamalamie gets to say he inherited "the Bush problems" then Bush gets to say he inherited all the "Clinton shit." see how that works?? ya,, I think ya do.

And if you blame Clinton for 9/11, which I don't, but you seem to be doing, then logically the Christmas bomber is Bush's fault, and you should all shut the hell up about it.

You folks don't really seem to follow logic though...

newp,, won't shut the hell up about it,, if obamalamaie can whine and complain then so can we,, you just want it both ways,, it don't work that way bodunk,, obamie was in office for a year,, he himself said they had everything they needed by way of intelligence they just failed to put it together, he said it was his responsibliity,, so if you want to argue that point take it up with your messiaha,, and as long as you folks want to play the blame game, Cheney has every right to respond.. he does a good job too pointing out obamie's weaknessess.. Put the cia on trial and they are going to undermine yer ass.. maybe,, give that a thought.

Gotta agree. Cheney has every right to point out OL'BO's failings. AFter all, BO and his posse blame everything, even after a year, on Bush and Cheney. Think what you like about those two but they kept this country safe for the 7 years following 9-11. More than I can say for OL'BO. Lets just hope they get their shit together before we have another serious attack her in AMerica. Then who will they blame??

 

[Liability]

That's good because it appears that your reading comprehension skills are about as "uninformed and irrelevant" as you seem to think my opinions are.

There is no such "appearance." You're just goofy.



We don't KNOW if a FAIR trial can be held without giving some of these fuckers their "discovery." Forget the underpants fucker for a second. What of the schmucks held for YEARS at Gitmo before even being "charged" with any "crimes?" Did you ever hear of the right to a speedy trial? Haven't they all had their rights denied already? When they spoke, was it after having been afforded NO Miranda warnings? Was it after being subjected to interrogation techniques that denied them their right to remain silent? Did they have attorneys promptly appointed to represent their legal interests? Are THEY going to be denied the discovery in EVERY ONE of THEIR cases?

If so, is that fair? Is it "just?" Is it "right?" Is THIS the kind of "Justice" you think we stand for? If not, then what the fuck are we doing here?

What if they DO get a Judge to say "Look. If this is a criminal matter, then they have had so many of their rights violated and denied that it is now impossible to provide them with a fair trial. Case dismissed!" In that case, do you support returning them home to the warm embrace of their good buddies in al qaeda? Or, if you find that to be a remarkably ridiculous thing to even consider, then what do we do with these guys at that point? Ignore the determination of the court and just hold them anyway? Wasn't that what we were alredy DOING? Do you support using our courts as a stage prop?

So. To cut to the chase. You can't answer the question and provide me with any examples where national security has been compromised in any way in these trials?

You sound even more stupid with each post. That's difficult to get to, too. You were already fucking retarded.

Who, exactly, do you imagine would be telling us if something delivered to a "defendant" during a trial as "discovery material" had compromised National Security? The terrorist on trial? Why the fuck would he TELL us that we had given him too much information? Or perhaps the National Security folks? Yes. Of course. For there's no doubt that IF they shared something that should not have been shared they would REALIZE the error of their ways -- which makes it hard to conceive why they would have given it over in the first place. OR, after sharing the discovery, perhaps they belatedly said "Do'oh!"? And their incentive to announce to the world the stupid shit we had just done would be -- what exactly?

OR, perhaps some court has "ruled" that a "defendant" is NOT entitled to the classified material? No big deal UNLESS that means that the defendant is getting denied access to the very material needed to properly prepare a defense! Maybe you just don't give a shit if the trial is FAIR as long as it's IN one of our civilian criminal justice courts?

No matter how you slice it, you asked a stupid-ass meaningless question.

You, ma'am, are fucking dangerously stupid.

And by the way, this President most certainly has NOT consistently said that we are at war. He has said it, but far too infrequently. And he often undercuts that point with PC bullshit. It's not sufficient to SAY we are at war, anyway. One should conduct our national affairs accordingly. He fucking has not.

 

[CurveLight]

Yeah. Your gender just jumps off the page.

And OF COURSE lawyers who pracitice in the realm of criminal law have heard of "plea bargaining." In fact, that's what I had just finished SAYING. And WHY the U.S. should even have to engage in such "plea bargaining" with a terrorist to get needed intel while we are at war is beyond a mystery. THAT'S exactly WHY it's a fucking huge mistake to conflate the concept of "terrorist" with the concept of a mere "criminal."

Why do YOU people insist on confusing the concept of properly dealing with terrorists in a time of war with a "legal" matter?

There ARE already ways to insure that the "suspected" terrorist (you know, the one with the self immolated underpants) get's some opportunity to challenge his detention. They are known as military tribunals or military commissions. They have historically worked quite well. What we should cetainly NOT be doing is inserting this shit into our domestic civilian criminal justice system.

Again - the civilian criminal justice system has apparently worked very well in the cases it has handled - can you show me an instance where it has failed? Why exactly do you think it would NOT work well in this particular case? This one isn't even a hardened Al Queda operative - just some dumb shit convinced that exploding underwear was the way to his heart's desire. He started talking as soon as he was captured.

I am not interested in your uninformed and irrelevant opinions about "how well" the civilian criminal justice system has worked. I don't even know what that means. It "works" if there's a conviction? It has failed if there's an acquittal? Jeez, that's stupid.

I AM concerned with the FACT that when a person is charged with a crime in the civilian criminal Justice system here in the U.S.A., that person is automatically insulated. He is TOLD that he has a by-God RIGHT to remain silent. And right at that instant the conclusion becomes inescapable. It is a seriously stupid and easily avoided MISTAKE to confuse a captured illegal enemy combatant with a mere criminal.

Criminals commit crimes. Vile and hideous crimes, sometimes, but JUST crimes, nonetheless.

Illegal enemy combatants -- in this case, terrorists -- do not JUST commit "crimes." They commit ACTS of WAR.

I WANT all people charged with mere crimes to get their Constitutional right to remain silent.

I do NOT WANT captured illegal enemy combatants -- terrorists -- to even THINK we will tolerate their refusal to give up the information we demand from their captured mouths.

Yes, LOTS of folks talk when they are first arrested before they lawyer up. But the information we might need from the underpants bomber is likely to include much more in the way of DETAILS on minor points than can be obtained from an arrested criminal suspect prior to his arraignment. (There are time constraints. Suspects must get to court promptly.) And once the right to counsel is invoked, or once it attaches by operation of law, a suspect may not be questioned outside the presence of his lawyer.

It gets a LOT more complicated from there. What if the lawyer advises the underpants bomber that the U.S. prosecutor isn't promising him enough in exchange for sharing information? The lawyer would, at the juncture, probably advise his client NOT to speak anymore to the "government." That is a really bad outcome when we need to know what the fucker knows.

Suppose the stupid motherfucker wants to go to trial? In the case of the underpants bomber, it appears that the government DID have his name and some intel about him before he even was permitted to take that flight. So, the lawyer will probably insist on GETTING that to review in preparation for the trial. The government might just wish to decline to share OUR intel with a terrorist. But the Court might then have to tell the government, "Pick your poison. You don't have to give him state secrets, but then you cannot prosecute him. OR, if you really want to proceed with this prosecution, then you HAVE to give him his discovery material." Why on EARTH would we want to put ourselves in THAT stupid position when there's no real need to go there? Military tribunal time.

The President said we are at war and he said it in the context of this very terrorist attack attempt. So, why on EARTH are we doing this crap to ourselves?

Fear is your sole Master.

 

[CurveLight]

There is no such "appearance." You're just goofy.



We don't KNOW if a FAIR trial can be held without giving some of these fuckers their "discovery." Forget the underpants fucker for a second. What of the schmucks held for YEARS at Gitmo before even being "charged" with any "crimes?" Did you ever hear of the right to a speedy trial? Haven't they all had their rights denied already? When they spoke, was it after having been afforded NO Miranda warnings? Was it after being subjected to interrogation techniques that denied them their right to remain silent? Did they have attorneys promptly appointed to represent their legal interests? Are THEY going to be denied the discovery in EVERY ONE of THEIR cases?

If so, is that fair? Is it "just?" Is it "right?" Is THIS the kind of "Justice" you think we stand for? If not, then what the fuck are we doing here?

What if they DO get a Judge to say "Look. If this is a criminal matter, then they have had so many of their rights violated and denied that it is now impossible to provide them with a fair trial. Case dismissed!" In that case, do you support returning them home to the warm embrace of their good buddies in al qaeda? Or, if you find that to be a remarkably ridiculous thing to even consider, then what do we do with these guys at that point? Ignore the determination of the court and just hold them anyway? Wasn't that what we were alredy DOING? Do you support using our courts as a stage prop?

So. To cut to the chase. You can't answer the question and provide me with any examples where national security has been compromised in any way in these trials?

You sound even more stupid with each post. That's difficult to get to, too. You were already fucking retarded.

Who, exactly, do you imagine would be telling us if something delivered to a "defendant" during a trial as "discovery material" had compromised National Security? The terrorist on trial? Why the fuck would he TELL us that we had given him too much information? Or perhaps the National Security folks? Yes. Of course. For there's no doubt that IF they shared something that should not have been shared they would REALIZE the error of their ways -- which makes it hard to conceive why they would have given it over in the first place. OR, after sharing the discovery, perhaps they belatedly said "Do'oh!"? And their incentive to announce to the world the stupid shit we had just done would be -- what exactly?

OR, perhaps some court has "ruled" that a "defendant" is NOT entitled to the classified material? No big deal UNLESS that means that the defendant is getting denied access to the very material needed to properly prepare a defense! Maybe you just don't give a shit if the trial is FAIR as long as it's IN one of our civilian criminal justice courts?

No matter how you slice it, you asked a stupid-ass meaningless question.

You, ma'am, are fucking dangerously stupid.

And by the way, this President most certainly has NOT consistently said that we are at war. He has said it, but far too infrequently. And he often undercuts that point with PC bullshit. It's not sufficient to SAY we are at war, anyway. One should conduct our natioanl affairs accordingly. He fucking has not.

Par for the course. Every time Liability fails to defend a position he resorts to nothing but foot stomping crybaby ad homs. Thank you for your consistency.

 

[CurveLight]

No, dumbshit. That isn't what you claimed. Do you even understand what you write? Do you understand the difference between what you wrote above and in this post:


You are inconsistent in what you claim, then equally inconsistent in your proof, then have to recant when your proof doesn't stack up.
Needless to say, whatever it is you want to say, the evidence doesn't support any of it.

You missed the point. I stated the BA actions increased terrorism. I backed that up but you conveniently edited my post so you could avoid that part. Are you guys really so desperate you will try to defend Bush by saying he only increased the threat of terrorism and not attacks themselves? I've already proven the increase in terrorist attacks but even if I didn't, the point is still valid. If Bush increased the threat of terrorism how is it possible to claim he was winning? How the hell are you guys going to try and reconcile that contradiction?

No. Again. That is not what you wrote. Your assertion was the most Western intelligence agencies said teh Bush administration created more terrorist attacks than any.
I am still waiting for proof of that assertion. I suspect I will be waiting forever while you jerk off over trying to defend yourself from Liability.

Lol....try to pay attention. I already retracted the claim the NIE said bush created more terrorist attacks than anyone in modern history. Do you understand what that means? Lol.

 

[Vast LWC]

And none of this has disrpoved my point.

If the Christmas Bomber is Obama's fault, then 9/11 is Bush and Cheney's fault.

I don't believe either to be the case, but apparently Cheney does.

 

[Maple]

And if you blame Clinton for 9/11, which I don't, but you seem to be doing, then logically the Christmas bomber is Bush's fault, and you should all shut the hell up about it.

You folks don't really seem to follow logic though...

newp,, won't shut the hell up about it,, if obamalamaie can whine and complain then so can we,, you just want it both ways,, it don't work that way bodunk,, obamie was in office for a year,, he himself said they had everything they needed by way of intelligence they just failed to put it together, he said it was his responsibliity,, so if you want to argue that point take it up with your messiaha,, and as long as you folks want to play the blame game, Cheney has every right to respond.. he does a good job too pointing out obamie's weaknessess.. Put the cia on trial and they are going to undermine yer ass.. maybe,, give that a thought.

Gotta agree. Cheney has every right to point out OL'BO's failings. AFter all, BO and his posse blame everything, even after a year, on Bush and Cheney. Think what you like about those two but they kept this country safe for the 7 years following 9-11. More than I can say for OL'BO. Lets just hope they get their shit together before we have another serious attack her in AMerica. Then who will they blame??

Cheney knows what he is doing and Obama doesn't. Obama should take lessons from Cheney on how to protect American citizens on American soil.

 

[CMike]

Coyote Liability is a tinsy wee bit more coarse than me but I agree on the substance that he said.

We are in a war based on information.

The more information we have about Al Qaida, the easier it is for authorities to stop terrorist attacks that could cost thousands of american civilian lives, and spread panic in this country.

The more information Al Qaida has about our intelligence, the easier it will be for their operatives to successfully execute more terrorist attacks costings potentially thousands of american lives, and spread panic in this country.

The point of a civlian trial is to give the most fair trial possible. In a civilian trial, defendents get to face their accusers and hear all the information that damns them.

However, what if giving information to the terorrist and his lawyer, will be used to keep authorities from stopping a terrorist attack to blow up a building in Florida?

What if by revealing the accusers, those sources can never be used again, to stop a terrorist attack?

What if you can't get witnesss because they need to be in Iraq in an on-going intelligence operation?

Also, how can average joe jurors be allowed to have sensitve intelligence information critical to stop terrorist attacks? They or their family could then be kidnapped and tortured to reveal that information.

So as Liability said if you don't reveal that information to the defendant how is he getting a fair trial? And if you do reveal that information to the defendant than your crippiling the US capability to stop other attacks?

What is the answer? Military tribunals. They can review all the material and make decisions based on that.

As Liability also said these aren't criminals. They are unlawful combatants. The don't even measure up as POWs because they don't meet the criteria. They have no rights.

The best way to try them is military tribunals.

And no they shouldn't have the right to remain silent. We need the information these scumbags have to thwart further terrorist attacks. There isn't the space to screw around.

 

[CurveLight]

So let's say ??

Either you DO admit that you were wrong or you decline to admit it. Either way, I don't much care. But it would be refreshing to see you man up enough to admit error.

As to the "stats" you are tossing around, I would suggest you may be experiencing difficulty with the notion of cause and effect. If -- and to the extent that -- terrorist activity increased after the invasion of Iraq, one cannot LOGICALLY, on that basis alone, conclude that the reason for the increased incidence of such attacks is the fact that we invaded Iraq. It requires considerably more proof than just citing those two (arguably) unrelated facts.

Holy shit. Did you miss this statement?

I fully admit that was a false claim and I retract it.

I fully admit that was a false claim and I retract it.

I fully admit that was a false claim and I retract it.

I fully admit that was a false claim and I retract it.

I fully admit that was a false claim and I retract it.


Even when I fucking retract a claim you still harp on it.

Lighten up, Francis. What you ACTUALLY wrote was, and I quote,

Do you see the difference? It LOOKED like you were positing a hypothetical. Sorry your writing style isn't exactly a model of clarity.

Then you move on to the cause and effect argument? Why don't you say there is no cause and effect between someone seeing a fire in a building and that person pulling the fire alarm? The cause and effect are quite clear as demonstrated by more than one source.

Terribly flawed analogy. Call it a failure, since it is. One MAY react to stimulus and that might well be cause and effect. But in the stats YOU offered, there is no necessary connection. It might VERY well be that whether or not we had ever gone into Iraq, the terrorists would have been on the move, anyway -- and perhaps elsewhere. It gets dark at night, too. Does oncoming darkness CAUSE the Sun to set?

Let's have some fun. Why don't you explain what information is required to show cause and effect? Now you have to figure out how to explain that equation without proving your own claim wrong.

The information that would be needed to demonstrate WHETHER the increased incidence of terrorist attacks was CAUSED by our incursion into Saddam's Iraq is in the possession of the terrorists. I am not privy to what's on their minds. And, neither are you. So, if you thought you were scoring some big rhetorical point with your last question, you have another think coming.

This is a great example of why you are full of shit. You say the numbers don't prove cause and effect but when asked what that equation would look like you squirm out of it. You fucking ****. If you can't produce an equation that shows cause and effect you can't claim the rise in terrorist attacks have no connection to the Bush Admin's actions. It's painfully obvious there is cause and effect but you will continue to deny it because you are nothing but a dishonest pussy.

Btw, it was fucking hilarious how you tried to blame me for your lack of comprehension. Even when I made a clear statement that said:

"I fully admit that was a false claim and I retract it."

You still avoid admitting your own stupidity. Holy shit you are one pathetic fucking individual. Why don't you see if Blackwater needs volunteers to test a roadside bomb detector? At least you could be doing something useful. On here all you do here is show why Nationalists are ignorant backwater fuck ups.