Obama opponents NEVER satisfied

[ConHog]

Ooohhhh you win again. Not really though. It's all but assured that he'll get life.

Dear sir, the average life time sentence in federal prison actually serves 12 years, FACT. Even if he get's life without possibility of parole, that doesn't mean jack if in 12 years some parole board thinks he's been a good boy in prison.

 

[Liability]

It is almost like torture.. LyigAbility's protest is like a beaten, starved and waterboarded terrorist suspect pleading for the umpteenth time the same tired rote. As if he knows something yet at the same time knows nothing.

True to the OP LA is never satisfied. What if he has some special knowledge? What if just one more round of interragation will bring out the horrible truth?

I believe that LA may be right after all. He probably knows some of these New York prosecutors and has no faith in them. He does not trust New York Judges. He does not seem shocked that 200 counts were tossed. If that happened in Seattle THAT would be the story .. not the one count that stuck.

Maybe LyingAbility is right. There should be no trials..IN NEW YORK! Because if he is a fair example of a NY NY attorney...WE ARE DOOMED!!!!!

Just sayin....

Smugly. You tip your hand. When you have nothing intelligent to say (which is all too frequently), you post.

My "protest" is completely valid and not one person has come close to addressing it rationally. Certainly not you or that idiot pantload jackoff tackylib or his new bestest buddy, vanquished.

Since you are a bit of a pussy and cannot answer honestly, I will pose the question yet again. If we acquire "evidence" against some al qaeda scumbag (it isn't actually gathered as evidence for trial, of course; it is gathered as military intelligence to help us wage war and defend ourselves), then assuming we treat the asshole as a mere 'criminal,' we would be obligated to share the "evidence" with the scumbag for his trial.

Of course, in a sane world, it would be considered quite irrational and inconceivable to share military intelligence with one of the captured enemy. But since they are merely 'criminals' in the eyes of retards like you, Smugs, we WOULD have to do that or face the prospect of having the "case" against the scumbag thrown out of Court. "Mr. Mohammed bin Ladencoksuckah, you are free to go with the apologies of the 'Court.'"

So the question is: why on Earth would we unilaterally decide to do that kind of shit TO ourselves?

Smugs, you really are an arrogant little dick, but you are also suffocatingly stupid. Try to smarten up. Seriously, it would do you a world of good.

 

[HUGGY]

It is almost like torture.. LyigAbility's protest is like a beaten, starved and waterboarded terrorist suspect pleading for the umpteenth time the same tired rote. As if he knows something yet at the same time knows nothing.

True to the OP LA is never satisfied. What if he has some special knowledge? What if just one more round of interragation will bring out the horrible truth?

I believe that LA may be right after all. He probably knows some of these New York prosecutors and has no faith in them. He does not trust New York Judges. He does not seem shocked that 200 counts were tossed. If that happened in Seattle THAT would be the story .. not the one count that stuck.

Maybe LyingAbility is right. There should be no trials..IN NEW YORK! Because if he is a fair example of a NY NY attorney...WE ARE DOOMED!!!!!

Just sayin....

Smugly. You tip your hand. When you have nothing intelligent to say (which is all too frequently), you post.

My "protest" is completely valid and not one person has come close to addressing it rationally. Certainly not you or that idiot pantload jackoff tackylib or his new bestest buddy, vanquished.

Since you are a bit of a pussy and cannot answer honestly, I will pose the question yet again. If we acquire "evidence" against some al qaeda scumbag (it isn't actually gathered as evidence for trial, of course; it is gathered as military intelligence to help us wage war and defend ourselves), then assuming we treat the asshole as a mere 'criminal,' we would be obligated to share the "evidence" with the scumbag for his trial.

Of course, in a sane world, it would be considered quite irrational and inconceivable to share military intelligence with one of the captured enemy. But since they are merely 'criminals' in the eyes of retards like you, Smugs, we WOULD have to do that or face the prospect of having the "case" against the scumbag thrown out of Court. "Mr. Mohammed bin Ladencoksuckah, you are free to go with the apologies of the 'Court.'"

So the question is: why on Earth would we unilaterally decide to do that kind of shit TO ourselves?

Smugs, you really are an arrogant little dick, but you are also suffocatingly stupid. Try to smarten up. Seriously, it would do you a world of good.

Oh... OK...You Win...

 

[taichiliberal]

Ooohhhh you win again. Not really though. It's all but assured that he'll get life.

Dear sir, the average life time sentence in federal prison actually serves 12 years, FACT. Even if he get's life without possibility of parole, that doesn't mean jack if in 12 years some parole board thinks he's been a good boy in prison.

That's a Con you're pulling, Hog. Lifers get out ONLY if there's new evidence that changes their sentence. And your "average" sentence has to with what type of crime you're talking about.....average for B&E, average for rape, average for assault, average for fraud, average for federal crime, etc., etc.

Look, just deal with the facts....the neocon naysayers were wrong, and Ghailani is doing a solid 20 years with a possibility of an additional life without parole....courtesy of a civilian trial. Another terrorist collaborator off the grid.....and the neocons are pissed because Obama did it on his terms. That's just messed up!

 

[taichiliberal]

Interestingly, although tackylib is too much of a douche bag to appreciate it, the quotes he provides all constitute contentions that the civilian courts' trial option SHOULDN'T be undertaken, not that they "couldn't" be undertaken. Which, of course, is what I had said.

It seems that knee-jerk morons like tackylib are in violent agreement, but are too mindless to realize that they have only helped prove me right.

Once again, the mental Liability DOESN'T READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY:

Mukasey was saying that it COULDN'T be done because this result will happen.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey has argued that federal courts cannot be trusted to safeguard sensitive evidence, citing the delivery to Osama bin Laden of a co-conspirator list provided to the defense counsel in the Rahman trial in the mid-1990s.

King was saying that it COULDN'T be done because this result will happen.

Representative Peter King (R-NY) warned that “these terrorists’ new home and the courthouse in which they’ll be tried will immediately move to the top of al Qaeda’s target list.”

The other jokers were carrying on about it shouldn't happen. They were ALL wrong, as is Liability STILL trying to say they are right on some level AFTER THE FACT of Ghailani's sentencing....and then he tries to split a hair. Poor Liability.....he needs a refresher course in reading comprehension ASAP.

Once again, tackylib is demonstrating that he is far too stupid to grasp the obvious or comprehend the meaning of words. He can quote Mukasey, but he cannot understand what those "words" actually mean! It's kind of startling to see that someone as fucking stupid as Tackylib is still capable of even breathing.

A warning that bad shit may happen is not a contention that a trial cannot be held for terrorists in our civilian Courts of Law. Instead, obviously, it is a contention that they SHOULDN'T be held in our civilian courts of law.

Tackylib is quite probably retarded, but he sure as hell is unpersuasive. It goes with the territory. Many uber-liberoidal asswipes like tackylib are as incapable of employing logic as he is.

And now we see the level of denial among the willfully ignorant and insipidly stubborn neocon parrots.

I give JUST TWO quotes of neocon driven GOP politicos stating that civilian trials of Gitmo detainees COULD NOT happen and the reasons why...reasons that they believed would be legal/factual outcomes....NOT warnings of what might be......and yet Liability uses logic so convoluted that it resembles a pretzel. Someone needs to pull the fool aside and explain that the anti-Obama folk said that a conviction could not be done in a civilian court.

A CONVICTION COULD NOT BE DONE IN A CIVILIAN COURT WAS THERE MAIN COMPLAINT MANTRA....THE FOLLOW UP HEDGED BET WAS THAT IT SHOULDN'T BE DONE...AND THEY WERE WRONG ON BOTH COUNTS.

Liability is like all low information neocon parrots....faced with complete defeat of one of their talking points in the real world....the try to split every hair, distort every fact, tell every half truth they can think of to try and avoid FULLY admitting they and their pundits/politicos were WRONG.

Well folks, Liability will just keep repeating his silliness ad nauseum. The chronology of the posts shows his folly, and Liability is not bright enough to realize that having the last word does NOT mean you're right. So I'm done with the litte dope on this particular thread, and leave him to predictably carry on.

 

[taichiliberal]

It is almost like torture.. LyigAbility's protest is like a beaten, starved and waterboarded terrorist suspect pleading for the umpteenth time the same tired rote. As if he knows something yet at the same time knows nothing.

True to the OP LA is never satisfied. What if he has some special knowledge? What if just one more round of interragation will bring out the horrible truth?

I believe that LA may be right after all. He probably knows some of these New York prosecutors and has no faith in them. He does not trust New York Judges. He does not seem shocked that 200 counts were tossed. If that happened in Seattle THAT would be the story .. not the one count that stuck.

Maybe LyingAbility is right. There should be no trials..IN NEW YORK! Because if he is a fair example of a NY NY attorney...WE ARE DOOMED!!!!!

Just sayin....

You shouldn't tease him.

 

[Jroc]

Look trasylib… only idiots like you believe we should treat these terrorist with kid gloves give them rights never before given to non citizen enemies of the state captured on the battlefield.. I'm sure our enemies are quaking in their boots with people like you running this country. They laugh at losers like you and you're lib buddies. These lunatics only understand and fear strength, Not appeasers who think water boarding three people is some kind of horrible torture that makes us no better then people who cut off heads. I think you should go on a peace mission go over to Afghanistan listen to the story of these poor oppressed terrorists lets see if you come back in one piece loser.

 

[HUGGY]

It is almost like torture.. LyigAbility's protest is like a beaten, starved and waterboarded terrorist suspect pleading for the umpteenth time the same tired rote. As if he knows something yet at the same time knows nothing.

True to the OP LA is never satisfied. What if he has some special knowledge? What if just one more round of interragation will bring out the horrible truth?

I believe that LA may be right after all. He probably knows some of these New York prosecutors and has no faith in them. He does not trust New York Judges. He does not seem shocked that 200 counts were tossed. If that happened in Seattle THAT would be the story .. not the one count that stuck.

Maybe LyingAbility is right. There should be no trials..IN NEW YORK! Because if he is a fair example of a NY NY attorney...WE ARE DOOMED!!!!!

Just sayin....

You shouldn't tease him.

Why not? What's he gonna do?..CRUSH my spirit with his dribble about how superior he is???

I can't hep myseff..The pompus asshole literally begs to be toyed with!!!

 

[taichiliberal]

Look trasylib… only idiots like you believe we should treat these terrorist with kid gloves give them rights never before given to non citizen enemies of the state captured on the battlefield.. I'm sure our enemies are quaking in their boots with people like you running this country. They laugh at losers like you and you're lib buddies. These lunatics only understand and fear strength, Not appeasers who think water boarding three people is some kind of horrible torture that makes us no better then people who cut off heads. I think you should go on a peace mission go over to Afghanistan listen to the story of these poor oppressed terrorists lets see if you come back in one piece loser.

Why don't you grow up, Jroc? All you can do is just parrot the same old neocon BS that was DISPROVEN with the Ghailani conviction. Don't you realize how damned foolish you look squawking the SOS AFTER THE FACTS disprove you?

Wise up, Jroc.....the Rove tactic of stubbornly insipid rhetoric just seems moronic when you're proven wrong. Essentially, you're hoping for another 9/11 just to prove Obama wrong on this point.....that's messed up, but I would expect nothing less from the likes of you, because you don't give a damn about any American's life unless they agree with you 100%.

So you may join your buddy Liability in the failed tactic of spewng the same childish, disproven nonsense ad nauseum.....both you fools think having the last word makes your dreck valid. But as the chronology of the posts shows, you're just spinning your wheels. Carry on, my intellectually impotent Jroc....I'm done with you here.

 

[Jroc]

A liberal view of success...They 'll never learn

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZHpprf6HSM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZHpprf6HSM[/ame]

 

[Liability]

It is almost like torture.. LyigAbility's protest is like a beaten, starved and waterboarded terrorist suspect pleading for the umpteenth time the same tired rote. As if he knows something yet at the same time knows nothing.

True to the OP LA is never satisfied. What if he has some special knowledge? What if just one more round of interragation will bring out the horrible truth?

I believe that LA may be right after all. He probably knows some of these New York prosecutors and has no faith in them. He does not trust New York Judges. He does not seem shocked that 200 counts were tossed. If that happened in Seattle THAT would be the story .. not the one count that stuck.

Maybe LyingAbility is right. There should be no trials..IN NEW YORK! Because if he is a fair example of a NY NY attorney...WE ARE DOOMED!!!!!

Just sayin....

You shouldn't tease him.

Why not? What's he gonna do?..CRUSH my spirit with his dribble about how superior he is???

I can't hep myseff..The pompus asshole literally begs to be toyed with!!!

Exactly why I play with you like a cat does with a mouse before severing its spine.

As I correctly noted before, you offer no intelligent argument. You lack the ability to craft one. Tackylib is clearly just a hopeless retard, but I had hoped for better from you. Instead, you remain a little dick and an assclown.

It is fun underscoring what a useless tool you tend to be, though, Smugs. You poor pooh pooh. I called you arrogant, you got all butthurt over it and so you promptly came back with a remarkably feeble "oh yeah!? Well, you too!" Bravo.

 

[Vanquish]

Look trasylib… only idiots like you believe we should treat these terrorist with kid gloves give them rights never before given to non citizen enemies of the state captured on the battlefield.. I'm sure our enemies are quaking in their boots with people like you running this country. They laugh at losers like you and you're lib buddies. These lunatics only understand and fear strength, Not appeasers who think water boarding three people is some kind of horrible torture that makes us no better then people who cut off heads. I think you should go on a peace mission go over to Afghanistan listen to the story of these poor oppressed terrorists lets see if you come back in one piece loser.

Are you someone who believes what the Founding Fathers said? If you are then I suggest you change your attitude.

No one is saying that you let enemies go or you don't prosecute them to the full extent of the law or hold their hand. When you say shit like that you really make reading the rest of what you say a worthless effort.

The FF's said that certain rights are inalienable...that ALL people have them. That includes non-citizens.

Your position is very anti-american. when you fuck with people around the world, you tell people it's ok to fuck with our citizens.

 

[Jroc]

Look trasylib… only idiots like you believe we should treat these terrorist with kid gloves give them rights never before given to non citizen enemies of the state captured on the battlefield.. I'm sure our enemies are quaking in their boots with people like you running this country. They laugh at losers like you and you're lib buddies. These lunatics only understand and fear strength, Not appeasers who think water boarding three people is some kind of horrible torture that makes us no better then people who cut off heads. I think you should go on a peace mission go over to Afghanistan listen to the story of these poor oppressed terrorists lets see if you come back in one piece loser.

Are you someone who believes what the Founding Fathers said? If you are then I suggest you change your attitude.

No one is saying that you let enemies go or you don't prosecute them to the full extent of the law or hold their hand. When you say shit like that you really make reading the rest of what you say a worthless effort.

The FF's said that certain rights are inalienable...that ALL people have them. That includes non-citizens.

Your position is very anti-american. when you fuck with people around the world, you tell people it's ok to fuck with our citizens.

Correct… certain rights are inalienable, but the U.S. constitution only applies to U.S citizens and people living in this country, to say otherwise is pure nonsense. Anyway how does it help this country or our allies to tie our hands while our enemy’s push on and laugh at our stupidity? We water boarded three men which prevented other attacks that would have killed more of our people and sent this country’s economy into a tailspin but all the libs focus on is we” tortured” those people, makes no sense. That’s not how you win wars

 

[Vanquish]

You need to go learn what "ALL" and "inalienable" mean.

Then....maybe....any of what you said might have a tinge of believability...IF you apply the correct definitions.

 

[Jroc]

You need to go learn what "ALL" and "inalienable" mean.

Then....maybe....any of what you said might have a tinge of believability...IF you apply the correct definitions.

I think you need to learn whom the Constitution applies to.

 

[taichiliberal]

You need to go learn what "ALL" and "inalienable" mean.

Then....maybe....any of what you said might have a tinge of believability...IF you apply the correct definitions.

you're dealing with insipidly stubborn neocon wonks who thrive on low information and their own willful ignorance. They have their beliefs....reality, logic and facts be damned.

 

[Liability]

You need to go learn what "ALL" and "inalienable" mean.

Then....maybe....any of what you said might have a tinge of believability...IF you apply the correct definitions.

you're dealing with insipidly stubborn neocon wonks who thrive on low information and their own willful ignorance. They have their beliefs....reality, logic and facts be damned.

It's always amusing to see some ignorant lib like tackylib spouting such crap. You liberoidal assholes run on ignorance and are impervious to facts and logic.

You throw lots of bricks in your little glass houses and then scratch your heads wondering why all your walls are broken. Dumbass. Worse yet, you then demand that other people pay for your self-inflicted damages.

Stupid ignorant shitheads like tackylib love to use the term "neocon," but never have the first damn clue what it means or to whom it actually applies.

 

[Varth Dader]

You know not whereof you speak.

Did we take Nazis to court to try their asses and threaten them with prison?

Nope.

We engaged them in battle.

And if we captured some of those fucks alive, we held them without trials in POW camps for an indefinite amount of time with not prospect of a trial or of habeas corpus or any of those other things associated with Constitutional rights.

Now, of course, al qaeda scumbags are different. They are not legal enemy combatants. They don't have uniforms, for example, and they have no concern for the laws and rules of war. So they aren't properly held as POWs. In fact, that status is a privilege to which they are not entitled. But, since we (unlike them) are civilized, we do treat them fairly well, in a manner akin to POWs. And certainly they deserve nothing better. So if a legitimate uniformed legal enemy combatant can be held without trial, then some al qaeda fuck can be so held, too.

And if there is any kind of prosecution to be had for their savage, barbaric war crime behavior, it should not give rise to greater rights than those enjoyed by captured, non-uniform wearing enemy saboteurs or spies. Summary execution would be appropriate. And Constitutional "rights" still are not applicable. Or, more accurately stated, they shouldn't be.

But given some recent arbitrary and aberrant Court rulings, there is no certainty anymore. Too bad.

If Al Qaeda is different than traditional enemies, as you say, why are you trying to apply a traditional war logic to Al Qaeda people we arrest?

Why should they be treated akin to POWs instead of akin to simply Criminals?

It seems to me one one hand you are trying to separate them from regular soldiers, acknowledging the difference there, yet end up merging them with the way soldiers are treated.

 

[Liability]

You know not whereof you speak.

Did we take Nazis to court to try their asses and threaten them with prison?

Nope.

We engaged them in battle.

And if we captured some of those fucks alive, we held them without trials in POW camps for an indefinite amount of time with not prospect of a trial or of habeas corpus or any of those other things associated with Constitutional rights.

Now, of course, al qaeda scumbags are different. They are not legal enemy combatants. They don't have uniforms, for example, and they have no concern for the laws and rules of war. So they aren't properly held as POWs. In fact, that status is a privilege to which they are not entitled. But, since we (unlike them) are civilized, we do treat them fairly well, in a manner akin to POWs. And certainly they deserve nothing better. So if a legitimate uniformed legal enemy combatant can be held without trial, then some al qaeda fuck can be so held, too.

And if there is any kind of prosecution to be had for their savage, barbaric war crime behavior, it should not give rise to greater rights than those enjoyed by captured, non-uniform wearing enemy saboteurs or spies. Summary execution would be appropriate. And Constitutional "rights" still are not applicable. Or, more accurately stated, they shouldn't be.

But given some recent arbitrary and aberrant Court rulings, there is no certainty anymore. Too bad.

If Al Qaeda is different than traditional enemies, as you say, why are you trying to apply a traditional war logic to Al Qaeda people we arrest?

Why should they be treated akin to POWs instead of akin to simply Criminals?

It seems to me one one hand you are trying to separate them from regular soldiers, acknowledging the difference there, yet end up merging them with the way soldiers are treated.

Because they are engaged in warfare. They aren't vandalizing the walls of your old high school. They aren't robbing banks. They aren't smuggling drugs to sell to our kids. (To the extent they engage in thievery or drug dealing, it is for the purpose of furthering their ability to wage this war.)

Why would we want to treat them BETTER than we treat a captured Nazi during WWII? Criminals get trials. Captured enemies get held as POWs. Captured enemies get no fucking "trial." The issue with them is never "well, can we prove their 'guilt' of some crime beyond a reasonable doubt?" The issue with them is much simpler. How do we best prevent them from continuing to wage war? IF we "try" them for some mere "criminality," they could get acquitted by a jury as stupid as the OJ Simpson murder trial jury. What do we do with them, then? Permit them to return "home" which is the same as permitting them to return to the "battlefield" thereby endangering our fighting forces and -- in the case of these terrorist shitheads -- endangering civilians, too.

Fuck that.

If the Nazis who were LAWFUL combatants in many respects were not given such "rights," then it is beyond obvious that al qaeda pussies shouldn't get BETTER treatment.

If we CHOOSE (due to the fact that we happen to be civilized) to treat them in a fashion roughly akin to POWs (without giving them that legal status which they do not merit), that's entirely our right. But they should derive no additional benefits from our civilized and enlightened and generous largess.

 

[Varth Dader]

Because they are engaged in warfare. They aren't vandalizing the walls of your old high school. They aren't robbing banks. They aren't smuggling drugs to sell to our kids. (To the extent they engage in thievery or drug dealing, it is for the purpose of furthering their ability to wage this war.)

Why would we want to treat them BETTER than we treat a captured Nazi during WWII? Criminals get trials. Captured enemies get held as POWs. Captured enemies get no fucking "trial." The issue with them is never "well, can we prove their 'guilt' of some crime beyond a reasonable doubt?" The issue with them is much simpler. How do we best prevent them from continuing to wage war? IF we "try" them for some mere "criminality," they could get acquitted by a jury as stupid as the OJ Simpson murder trial jury. What do we do with them, then? Permit them to return "home" which is the same as permitting them to return to the "battlefield" thereby endangering our fighting forces and -- in the case of these terrorist shitheads -- endangering civilians, too.

Fuck that.

If the Nazis who were LAWFUL combatants in many respects were not given such "rights," then it is beyond obvious that al qaeda pussies shouldn't get BETTER treatment.

If we CHOOSE (due to the fact that we happen to be civilized) to treat them in a fashion roughly akin to POWs (without giving them that legal status which they do not merit), that's entirely our right. But they should derive no additional benefits from our civilized and enlightened and generous largess.

I'm not convinced, at least not if you look at the consequences of their actions.

It's clear to me that Al Qaeda isn't trying to conquer the US in terms of territory. So that part of war, which I would argue is the most significant one in a traditional sense, isn't on the table.

Then, if I look at the consequences of their actions, I can think of many criminals whose actions are by far worse in terms of cost to the US. For example, the drug dealers you mention, how many dead people are they responsible for? Are they not also waging a war on the US, in the sense that through willful blindness - or worse, pure malice - are trying to damage the us? What about a home grown terrorist?

I think it's not clear cut like you are describing. And the risk with your approach is that you will catch people in your net that should certainly be within the penumbra of criminal law.

Finally, you seem to distrust the legal system and the jury system. You basically don't want to take the risk of an adverse judgment. You have convicted the person on day 1. I think it's very tempting to prejudge people, but simply because we are scared doesn't mean we should forgo our way of justice. Using that logic, I can think of many situations in the criminal law system where we should be removing protections afforded to the accused to err on the side of caution.