Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It seems nineteen Democrat Congressmembers have written a letter to President Obama, asking for the federal government to shell out some big bucks to New York for the criminal trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators.
So let's get this straight. These puswads insisted that this act of war against the United States - 9/11, for those of you who haven't been following along - should be treated like a simple violation of the civilian criminal code; these guys should be treated like they stole an old lady's purse, and then shot the old lady, rather than like they stole three airplanes and flew them, full of passengers, into the World Trade Center, also full of people.
But NOW . . . oh, NOW these belly-crawling, terrorist-aiding dumbasses have noticed that this is just a BIT bigger than a everyday, run-of-the-mill crime, and MIGHT bring extra problems with it, like . . . oh, I don't know, an insanely high risk of more terrorism in the city these animals already ravaged? Not to mention that there might one or two (thousand) people in the area who would - justifiably - like to have these evil bastards' cojones for trophies? So gee whiz, this is going to cost a bundle for added security and the federal budget should bear the brunt of it.
Seriously, have people in New York ever considered the possibility of electing people with three-digit IQs? Who has been keeping these possibilities a secret from these rocket scientists all this time?
My first instinct is to say: screw you, suck it up. You troglodytes wanted this to be a civilian criminal matter. That makes it New York's problem now. I'm not aware of the federal government making a habit of funding any other trials in the civilian courts. I feel a little sorry for the people of New York, who have been raising a ruckus about these concerns ever since Obama announced this decision. Their local politicians are trying to put a stop to it. On the other hand, they elected these mushbrains, so I don't feel THAT sorry for them. What goes around comes around.
Does this come as a surprise?
Rush brought it up on day one after the story broke.
of COURSE he "answers" to the president. But he certainly is NOT required to GET PERMISSION for everything he does.
Sure, he can go to the crapper on his own say-so, but transferring the alleged mastermind behind 9/11 and his co-conspirators from federal custody to that of New York State to be tried as common criminals? You really, honestly think the AG is going to do something that big and public and controversial on his own hook? Seriously?
yeah... I do. Now why don't you prove me wrong or STFU!
Does this come as a surprise?
Rush brought it up on day one after the story broke.
uh...and?
the fact that rush brought it up is the only reason the wingnuts are talking about it now... you know, given they didn't say a word about it when the shoe bomber was tried.
KSM already plead guilty before a military tribunal.
after being waterboarded how many times?
look at it this way. if some other country was holding one of our guys and said they "confessed" to something after being tortured, i'm kind of thinking you'd call foul.
well, i call foul equally....whether its them doing it to our guys or our guys doing it to them.
KSM already plead guilty before a military tribunal.
after being waterboarded how many times?
look at it this way. if some other country was holding one of our guys and said they "confessed" to something after being tortured, i'm kind of thinking you'd call foul.
well, i call foul equally....whether its them doing it to our guys or our guys doing it to them.
This just in: he did a lot more than confess. He also gave interrogators reams of information on terrorist activities, allowing them to thwart multiple plots and save lives. I'd say that swings his confession away from your "poor, abused man saying anything to stop the torture" scenario and toward credibility.
For example:
In August, 2006, acting on information gleaned from KSM, British officials launched a series of raids that led to the arrests of two dozen al Qaida suspects. One of them had a thumbdrive in his pocket with security details for Heathrow airport, and info on seven trans-Atlantic flights scheduled to take off within hours of each other. Had it not been for intel from KSM about a plan he set up for exactly this scenario, intended to kill around 4,000 civilians, intelligence officials would never have identified the activities of this cell as leading up to this plan.
after being waterboarded how many times?
look at it this way. if some other country was holding one of our guys and said they "confessed" to something after being tortured, i'm kind of thinking you'd call foul.
well, i call foul equally....whether its them doing it to our guys or our guys doing it to them.
This just in: he did a lot more than confess. He also gave interrogators reams of information on terrorist activities, allowing them to thwart multiple plots and save lives. I'd say that swings his confession away from your "poor, abused man saying anything to stop the torture" scenario and toward credibility.
For example:
In August, 2006, acting on information gleaned from KSM, British officials launched a series of raids that led to the arrests of two dozen al Qaida suspects. One of them had a thumbdrive in his pocket with security details for Heathrow airport, and info on seven trans-Atlantic flights scheduled to take off within hours of each other. Had it not been for intel from KSM about a plan he set up for exactly this scenario, intended to kill around 4,000 civilians, intelligence officials would never have identified the activities of this cell as leading up to this plan.
Jillian is an Obama bot, she will say anything, do anything, to protect or defend Obama. No matter the facts, no matter the reality. Do not confuse her with facts she just ignores them for her drive by troll posts.
This is sad too, cause before Obama came along she was an intelligent useful poster to this board.
Sure, he can go to the crapper on his own say-so, but transferring the alleged mastermind behind 9/11 and his co-conspirators from federal custody to that of New York State to be tried as common criminals? You really, honestly think the AG is going to do something that big and public and controversial on his own hook? Seriously?
yeah... I do. Now why don't you prove me wrong or STFU!
I shouldn't need to "prove you wrong". Common sense does that. The fact that you lack same doesn't indicate that I should make up for that lack. It indicates that YOU should shut the fuck up.
It seems nineteen Democrat Congressmembers have written a letter to President Obama, asking for the federal government to shell out some big bucks to New York for the criminal trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators.
So let's get this straight. These puswads insisted that this act of war against the United States - 9/11, for those of you who haven't been following along - should be treated like a simple violation of the civilian criminal code; these guys should be treated like they stole an old lady's purse, and then shot the old lady, rather than like they stole three airplanes and flew them, full of passengers, into the World Trade Center, also full of people.
But NOW . . . oh, NOW these belly-crawling, terrorist-aiding dumbasses have noticed that this is just a BIT bigger than a everyday, run-of-the-mill crime, and MIGHT bring extra problems with it, like . . . oh, I don't know, an insanely high risk of more terrorism in the city these animals already ravaged? Not to mention that there might one or two (thousand) people in the area who would - justifiably - like to have these evil bastards' cojones for trophies? So gee whiz, this is going to cost a bundle for added security and the federal budget should bear the brunt of it.
Seriously, have people in New York ever considered the possibility of electing people with three-digit IQs? Who has been keeping these possibilities a secret from these rocket scientists all this time?
My first instinct is to say: screw you, suck it up. You troglodytes wanted this to be a civilian criminal matter. That makes it New York's problem now. I'm not aware of the federal government making a habit of funding any other trials in the civilian courts. I feel a little sorry for the people of New York, who have been raising a ruckus about these concerns ever since Obama announced this decision. Their local politicians are trying to put a stop to it. On the other hand, they elected these mushbrains, so I don't feel THAT sorry for them. What goes around comes around.
And you know what I look like...how?
I have no doubt that he had Obama's blessing in this matter - I think it was a great decision and any smart president would have agreed with it. Nonetheless, no one has shown me anything that would show that Holder needed Obama's PERMISSION for everything (or ANYTHING) that he does....the initial claim with which I took issue.
It's a figure of speech dumbass. I'm pretty sure someone has already told you that the AG serves at the pleasure of the president and not at his own pleasure. You admit that you don't doubt that the AG had the presidents approval. You're trying to argue over semantics because you have no other argument. You may as well concede that you are wrong.
The Attorney General is nominated by the President of the United States and takes office after confirmation by the United States Senate. He or she serves at the pleasure of the President and can be removed by the President at any time; the Attorney General is also subject to impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial in the Senate for "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors."
United States Attorney General - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
other AG's have resigned rather than follow inappropriate guidance from the president. YOu have YET to prove that this was Obama's decision and not Holder's. WHy not get back to me when you can... and until then, STFU.
KSM already plead guilty before a military tribunal.
after being waterboarded how many times?
look at it this way. if some other country was holding one of our guys and said they "confessed" to something after being tortured, i'm kind of thinking you'd call foul.
well, i call foul equally....whether its them doing it to our guys or our guys doing it to them.
This just in: he did a lot more than confess. He also gave interrogators reams of information on terrorist activities, allowing them to thwart multiple plots and save lives. I'd say that swings his confession away from your "poor, abused man saying anything to stop the torture" scenario and toward credibility.
For example:
In August, 2006, acting on information gleaned from KSM, British officials launched a series of raids that led to the arrests of two dozen al Qaida suspects. One of them had a thumbdrive in his pocket with security details for Heathrow airport, and info on seven trans-Atlantic flights scheduled to take off within hours of each other. Had it not been for intel from KSM about a plan he set up for exactly this scenario, intended to kill around 4,000 civilians, intelligence officials would never have identified the activities of this cell as leading up to this plan.
First you would have to assune these are PEOPLE, they are animals, And as far as keeping them in custody for years, too bad, they should have thought of that before they attacked us. Stop feeling sorry for them, they are not covered by OUR constitution.It was Holder's choice. Not obama's.
And I happen to agree with the choice. It certainly beats sequestering people for six years without charges and without trials.
It's a figure of speech dumbass. I'm pretty sure someone has already told you that the AG serves at the pleasure of the president and not at his own pleasure. You admit that you don't doubt that the AG had the presidents approval. You're trying to argue over semantics because you have no other argument. You may as well concede that you are wrong.
United States Attorney General - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
other AG's have resigned rather than follow inappropriate guidance from the president. YOu have YET to prove that this was Obama's decision and not Holder's. WHy not get back to me when you can... and until then, STFU.
You are an idiot. The AG SERVES AT THE PRESIDENTS PLEASURE NOT HIS OWN. So everything he does he has the presidents approval on, the AG cannot act on his own. Are you intentionally being stupid or were you born that way?
First you would have to assune these are PEOPLE, they are animals, And as far as keeping them in custody for years, too bad, they should have thought of that before they attacked us. Stop feeling sorry for them, they are not covered by OUR constitution.
other AG's have resigned rather than follow inappropriate guidance from the president. YOu have YET to prove that this was Obama's decision and not Holder's. WHy not get back to me when you can... and until then, STFU.
You are an idiot. The AG SERVES AT THE PRESIDENTS PLEASURE NOT HIS OWN. So everything he does he has the presidents approval on, the AG cannot act on his own. Are you intentionally being stupid or were you born that way?
Most good leaders of large organizations use the concept of command by negation/intervention by exception. They do not need to approve every move that their subordinates make. THey DO allow them to act on their own nearly all the time. When they find them going astray, or heading in a direction that is against their overall strategy, then, and only then do they step in and provide overriding guidance.
It would seem that YOU are the idiot, sir... for thinking that the president does not allow the AG to run his own department without rudder orders from the White House.
First you would have to assune these are PEOPLE, they are animals, And as far as keeping them in custody for years, too bad, they should have thought of that before they attacked us. Stop feeling sorry for them, they are not covered by OUR constitution.
actually... they are protected by the supreme law of the land...that, of course, being treaties we have signed that require us to treat all persons humanely.
First you would have to assune these are PEOPLE, they are animals, And as far as keeping them in custody for years, too bad, they should have thought of that before they attacked us. Stop feeling sorry for them, they are not covered by OUR constitution.
