Obama opponents NEVER satisfied

[Liability]

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.

You are unlikely to ever be convinced of any alternative position when your mind is already made up to the contrary.

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.

Absolutely irrelevant. Why any nation goes to war (to obtain territory or to obtain some other tactical advantage or out of cultural or racial hatred, etc., etc., etc.) has nothing to do with the fact that in THIS CASE, referring to al qaeda, they have themselves DECLARED war and have acted accordingly.

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?

Even if that's true (and I see no purpose in debating that perception of yours), so what? It doesn't alter the fact that these al qaeda cocksuckers are waging war against us.

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.

There's a chance in any war that there will be innocents killed. What the devil does that have to do with the fact that they declared war on us (and they did) and that they have acted along those very lines to our massive detriment and to the grief of the family of the slaughtered victims?

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.

I have some misgivings about the legal system. I also think it's a remarkably good system for its intended purpose. So what? What does THAT have to do with whether or not we are making a mistake by permitting captured enemy combatants to have access to our LEGAL system. Is it possible that one of more captured enemy combatants might not be actual al qaeda type terrorists? Yes. Very sad. So is the loss of life of innocents in any war. Can you make a judgment about which of those two unhappy events is worse?

But if we insist on treating captured enemy combatants as mere criminals with all of the attendant rights to have a "trial," then not only is there an utterly unnecessary risk created (i.e., an acquittal) that we will have to release one or more of those rat fuckers to kill our soldiers and civilians again -- but in order TO even provide them with our notion of a "fair" trial complete with "due process," we will have to give them "discovery" to prepare for trial. In this case, when we are "trying" enemy combatants as mere criminals, that "discovery" stuff is likely (at least in some cases) to include military intelligence.

You guys tend to duck the consequences of your thinking and your proposed counsel. But that's not acceptable. So think it through.

If we are confronted with the choice of giving some al qaeda scumbag "discovery" in the form of military intelligence OR risk having a judge (adhering to our concepts of due process in criminal proceedings) dismiss the case against the "accused" what is our choice going to be? If we choose to give the "accused" his "discovery," then we are obliged to give our military intelligence to the enemy. How retarded is that? Alternatively, if we decide that prospect IS just too fucking retarded, then we are making the choice to deny the alleged "criminal" due process -- which is likely to result in either outright dismissal of the case OR suppression of necessary evidence against the bastards (which entails the inability to secure a conviction). So the second option appears to boil down to the necessary decision NOT to give the fuckers a fair trial meaning we are obliged to just let them go (in this case, that means back to the field of battle).

Why on EARTH would we give those WONDERFUL options to al qaeda scumbags when we wouldn't give such wonderful options to captured LAWFUL enemy combatants?

 

[taichiliberal]

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.

Bottom line: when the Shrub & company cut loose 500 Gitmo detainees after YEARS of interrogation and such....WITHOUT RYHME OR REASON GIVEN....you didn't hear a peep from the neocon peanut gallery. Yet, Obama gets a CONVICTION on a terrorist conspirator/collaborator, and Rove puppets like Jroc and Liability are foaming at the mouth with all types of doomsday supposition and conjecture....not to mention their depolorable understanding regarding the American legal system and recent historical events.

Go figure. Seems reality, facts and logic take a back seats to the neocon belief system.

 

[Jroc]

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.

Bottom line: when the Shrub & company cut loose 500 Gitmo detainees after YEARS of interrogation and such....WITHOUT RYHME OR REASON GIVEN....you didn't hear a peep from the neocon peanut gallery. Yet, Obama gets a CONVICTION on a terrorist conspirator/collaborator, and Rove puppets like Jroc and Liability are foaming at the mouth with all types of doomsday supposition and conjecture....not to mention their depolorable understanding regarding the American legal system and recent historical events.

Go figure. Seems reality, facts and logic take a back seats to the neocon belief system.

There was no system in place to try these people, plus Bush was sucking up to idiots like you, look what that got um. The military commission trials were all set up and had begun, Then Obama shuts them down, and he and Holder decide to bring them here for civilian trails, Friken idiots. Don't worry trashylib they’re going to have to rethink that position after the failure of the Gahlani trial.

 

[Varth Dader]

You are unlikely to ever be convinced of any alternative position when your mind is already made up to the contrary.

You might be right, but I do see the tension between a war like approach and a civil like approach.

Absolutely irrelevant. Why any nation goes to war (to obtain territory or to obtain some other tactical advantage or out of cultural or racial hatred, etc., etc., etc.) has nothing to do with the fact that in THIS CASE, referring to al qaeda, they have themselves DECLARED war and have acted accordingly.

As I am sure you know, simply because the other side says the word "War" doesn't mean it's the case. If they had said they were coming here to help us cleanse our souls, you wouldn't buy that argument.

I think it is relevant. If tomorrow you declare war on your government and start training in a militia for the big day, I wouldn't want you treated like a POW when they catch you.

Even if that's true (and I see no purpose in debating that perception of yours), so what? It doesn't alter the fact that these al qaeda cocksuckers are waging war against us.

There is a purpose because we need to decide how they should be treated

There's a chance in any war that there will be innocents killed. What the devil does that have to do with the fact that they declared war on us (and they did) and that they have acted along those very lines to our massive detriment and to the grief of the family of the slaughtered victims?

My concern is that when you use the "this is war" mentality, you start to cut procedural corners. I understand the need to cut those sometimes, but you want to make it the rule instead of the exception. You say "War therefore I can do away with X,Y,Z" protections". I don't like that reasoning.

For example, someone like Jose Padilla should have been tried in the civil courts -- right away.

I have some misgivings about the legal system. I also think it's a remarkably good system for its intended purpose. So what? What does THAT have to do with whether or not we are making a mistake by permitting captured enemy combatants to have access to our LEGAL system. Is it possible that one of more captured enemy combatants might not be actual al qaeda type terrorists? Yes. Very sad. So is the loss of life of innocents in any war. Can you make a judgment about which of those two unhappy events is worse?

That's my problem with your logic. At best, you pay lip service to the notion of justice. So what if innocent people die? You don't seem to care at all. I think our model should be designed in a way that avoids that situation. It's all good until you are the one caught in the net by mistake.

But if we insist on treating captured enemy combatants as mere criminals with all of the attendant rights to have a "trial," then not only is there an utterly unnecessary risk created (i.e., an acquittal) that we will have to release one or more of those rat fuckers to kill our soldiers and civilians again -- but in order TO even provide them with our notion of a "fair" trial complete with "due process," we will have to give them "discovery" to prepare for trial. In this case, when we are "trying" enemy combatants as mere criminals, that "discovery" stuff is likely (at least in some cases) to include military intelligence.

I think you are overblowing the discovery argument. The government was able to successfully prosecute terrorists without giving up all their secrets. Also, an acquittal might be the right outcome. But obviously you are not willing to take the risk of an acquittal. For you, it's guilty until proven guilty.

You guys tend to duck the consequences of your thinking and your proposed counsel. But that's not acceptable. So think it through.

If we are confronted with the choice of giving some al qaeda scumbag "discovery" in the form of military intelligence OR risk having a judge (adhering to our concepts of due process in criminal proceedings) dismiss the case against the "accused" what is our choice going to be? If we choose to give the "accused" his "discovery," then we are obliged to give our military intelligence to the enemy. How retarded is that? Alternatively, if we decide that prospect IS just too fucking retarded, then we are making the choice to deny the alleged "criminal" due process -- which is likely to result in either outright dismissal of the case OR suppression of necessary evidence against the bastards (which entails the inability to secure a conviction). So the second option appears to boil down to the necessary decision NOT to give the fuckers a fair trial meaning we are obliged to just let them go (in this case, that means back to the field of battle).

Why on EARTH would we give those WONDERFUL options to al qaeda scumbags when we wouldn't give such wonderful options to captured LAWFUL enemy combatants?

I think you could make this argument is no many situations. How many criminals do we release because prosecutors cannot meet their burden of proof, or have evidence excluded because they were obtained in a manner that violated the rights of the accused? Why do you limit your reasoning to simply Al Qaeda. I'm sure the civilian police also has many secrets they would not like to see come out in discovery.

I think you are just taking the sensationalist angle here (attack Al Qaeda), but I think your logic, when applied to our civil system, could equally apply. And if you think about the outcome, I'm pretty sure a (regular) criminal that cannot be convicted will hurt his community just as much as the freed al qaeda terrorist.

I am not saying that you are wrong in wanting to apply a different standard for a situation that does have unique characteristics. I'm saying that we need to differentiate between the actual need to use a different standard and the temptation we might have to use a different standard. Like I mentioned earlier, someone like Jose Padilla should have been treated like any other criminal (from the beginning, not 3 years later).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Padilla_(prisoner)

 

[Liability]

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.

Bottom line: when the Shrub & company cut loose 500 Gitmo detainees after YEARS of interrogation and such....WITHOUT RYHME OR REASON GIVEN....you didn't hear a peep from the neocon peanut gallery. Yet, Obama gets a CONVICTION on a terrorist conspirator/collaborator, and Rove puppets like Jroc and Liability are foaming at the mouth with all types of doomsday supposition and conjecture....not to mention their depolorable understanding regarding the American legal system and recent historical events.

Go figure. Seems reality, facts and logic take a back seats to the neocon belief system.

If complete babbling incoherent and dishonest liberoidal tools such as tackylib were capable of honest debate (which is clearly not the case), we would not be subjected to completely bullshit posts like the tackylib post I just quoted.

The release of some Gitmo detainees is not inconsistent at all with anything I have maintained. Indeed, to whatever extent the decision to release SOME of them permitted actual al qaeda vermin to be freed, one would imagine that you asshole uber-libs would be overjoyed. No, not because you want terrorists to be free to do their evil, but because you value the presumption of innocence so highly (albeit in the wrong context when it comes to such detainees) that you would be expected to applaud President Bush for valuing that so highly in these cases, too. For my part, I think the release (with some exception) of those detainees was a mistake since it DID permit some of the unlawful combatants to return to the "battlefield." That is EXACTLY what we have a right to avoid.

As to the "conviction" which you blather on about, my position is not stated accurately by you, tackylib. No surprise. Nobody expects a piece of dishonest crap such as you to bother with honesty or accuracy.

My position is that securing that one count conviction is good as far as it goes (and President Obama is not the one who got the conviction, either, you moron; it merely came during his tenure). The problem is -- as any honest person can see, which explains why you refuse to see it -- that the voluminous number of counts on which the bastard was acquitted shows how dangerous it is to attend to these scumbags using our civilian courts of law as the mechanism. Further, as I have noted, the one count on which the fucker got convicted COULD be overturned on appeal.

Finally, of course, the REAL argument (which you, as expected, simply ignore and evade) is that trying these cases as though they are mere matters of criminal justice entails a whole array of "due process" rights to the "accused," which serves ONLY to put all of us behind the eight-ball.

We should never choose to put ourselves in the position of having to pick between two completely unacceptable alternatives. In this matter the FALSE choice may become: (1) give the "accused" discovery (which can mean a duty to share military type classified intelligence with the enemy) or (2) refusing to share such alleged "discovery" thereby mandating (in many cases) the release of the "accused" and the dismissal of the charges (which may place enemy combatants back onto the battlefield to kill our soldiers or civilians).

Seeing as how we can easily end up confronting such choices, we should quickly realize that we are approaching the entire problem incorrectly. It starts with repeating the liberal ideological mistake of equating terrorism with mere criminality. You, tackylib, are far too dim-witted to appreciate the true legal matters under consideration.
Idiots such as you do not understand what the legal system is for and what it isn't designed for.

 

[HUGGY]

Two months of unrequited "love"???? THAT is sad....

 

[Liability]

Two months of unrequited "love"???? THAT is sad....

Ah, bull. You've gone a lifetime, so far.

 

[HUGGY]

Two months of unrequited "love"???? THAT is sad....

Ah, bull. You've gone a lifetime, so far.

You may have a point. The amount of nailed pussy does not neccesarily have anything to do with love.

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

 

[Liability]

Two months of unrequited "love"???? THAT is sad....

Ah, bull. You've gone a lifetime, so far.

You may have a point. The amount of nailed pussy does not neccesarily have anything to do with love.

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

You would think in terms of "nailing" pussy.

Healthy guys, by contrast, think in terms of sex.

 

[HUGGY]

Ah, bull. You've gone a lifetime, so far.

You may have a point. The amount of nailed pussy does not neccesarily have anything to do with love.

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

You would think in terms of "nailing" pussy.

Healthy guys, by contrast, think in terms of sex.

Experienced guys think of it as work and hopefully a sammich afterwards..

 

[Liability]

You may have a point. The amount of nailed pussy does not neccesarily have anything to do with love.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drsMyeXzLSo

You would think in terms of "nailing" pussy.

Healthy guys, by contrast, think in terms of sex.

Experienced guys think of it as work and hopefully a sammich afterwards..

Nonsense. Unless you are "working" at "nailing" a woman who isn't at all interested in you (story of your life), having consensual sexual relations with some lovely lady is much more like play. You can even still have a sandwich afterwords.

 

[Vanquish]

Why? You've just said that the rules are out when it's convenient to you.

So go for it. Treat people like shit and have our citizens treated like shit. I get that criminals ought to be prosecuted. That's the field I'm in, actually. But this "fuck everyone let's keeeeel 'em awl! yeeehaaww!!" bullshit is rednecky and ignorant.

 

[Liability]

Why? You've just said that the rules are out when it's convenient to you.

So go for it. Treat people like shit and have our citizens treated like shit. I get that criminals ought to be prosecuted. That's the field I'm in, actually. But this "fuck everyone let's keeeeel 'em awl! yeeehaaww!!" bullshit is rednecky and ignorant.

Since I was the last person to have posted in this thread (2 days ago), I will take a guess that Vanquished s attempting -- in his ignorant way -- to address himself to one of my posts?

Hard to say for sure. Vanquished doesn't seem to care whether he is coherent or not.

In the event that he/she/it is attempting to address his post to me, then Vanquished, you are wrong. No surprise. I have never said, suggested or implied "the rules are out when it's convenient to [me]." I presume you meant to say that 'the rules are out when they're INconvenient,' but if you are posting when high, maybe you should wait until you come down before "submitting" so that you can edit your irrational gibberish.

The balance of your imbecile post makes even less sense than the gibberish which preceded it. So, I'll wait for you to post something intelligible before I try to decode your malarkey any further.

 

[HUGGY]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR2ZNH-kIe0[/ame]

 

[taichiliberal]

Here's a thought: if the discussion deteriorates into a personal range war of slam fests, then it's NOT about the topic of the thread....and therefore should be taken up on another subject thread, like "why I hate so and so?"

Too date, the most virulent complainers of Ghailani sentence offer more supposition, conjecture and a bizarre revision of relevent history than dealing with the actual valid facts regarding the case (as the chronology of the posts shows).

That being said...here's a question: Exactly what sentence were all the critics of the recent Ghailani trial looking for that they would have found satisfactory? And how can they say that a minimum 20 year sentence (mandatory under federal court ruling) with an additional possibility of life without parole hanging in the balance is a "failure"?

 

[Jroc]

Here's a thought: if the discussion deteriorates into a personal range war of slam fests, then it's NOT about the topic of the thread....and therefore should be taken up on another subject thread, like "why I hate so and so?"

Too date, the most virulent complainers of Ghailani sentence offer more supposition, conjecture and a bizarre revision of relevent history than dealing with the actual valid facts regarding the case (as the chronology of the posts shows).

That being said...here's a question: Exactly what sentence were all the critics of the recent Ghailani trial looking for that they would have found satisfactory? And how can they say that a minimum 20 year sentence (mandatory under federal court ruling) with an additional possibility of life without parole hanging in the balance is a "failure"?

I was actually complaining about the whole premise of capturing the enemy on the battlefield giving them constitutional rights and bringing them to the states for trial in civilian courts which is ludicrous, You on the other hand focus on this one particular case and your "stuck on stupid".

 

[taichiliberal]

Here's a thought: if the discussion deteriorates into a personal range war of slam fests, then it's NOT about the topic of the thread....and therefore should be taken up on another subject thread, like "why I hate so and so?"

Too date, the most virulent complainers of Ghailani sentence offer more supposition, conjecture and a bizarre revision of relevent history than dealing with the actual valid facts regarding the case (as the chronology of the posts shows).

That being said...here's a question: Exactly what sentence were all the critics of the recent Ghailani trial looking for that they would have found satisfactory? And how can they say that a minimum 20 year sentence (mandatory under federal court ruling) with an additional possibility of life without parole hanging in the balance is a "failure"?

I was actually complaining about the whole premise of capturing the enemy on the battlefield giving them constitutional rights and bringing them to the states for trial in civilian courts which is ludicrous, You on the other hand focus on this one particular case and your "stuck on stupid".

As the chronology of the posts shows, your "arguments" went beyond what you state here...so stop lying. Also, you again express some delusional and/or revisionist view of recent events. As I documented on this thread, the neocon driven GOP politicos went on record with their protests against such trials, asserting why they shouldn't or couldn't take place.

This first trial demonstrates that they were WRONG! The "fixation" is being done by folks like YOU, Jroc; folk who seem hell bent on denouncing, demeaning and dismissing the outcome. You tried to do this with denial distortions, misinformation, half-truths, outright lies and an appalling display of your lack of knowledge on relevent information.

And FYI, Ghailani wasn't captured on the battlefield, he was nailed in Pakistan by joint Pakistan military intelligence and the FBI. I don't know what you and your buddy Liability have been going on about, but Gitmo's entire existence was some bizarre limbo the Shrub/Rummy/Cheney cooked up to avoid any real scrutiny of their bogus antics in Iraq. It resulted in 500 people getting release at one time without any reason given. Ghailani got dumped there after 2 years of "extraordinary rendition" (aka-torture), and would have STILL been in Gitmo had he not been given trial. That was the Shrub administration's plan.....do whatever they wanted with no accountabilty. Yeah, we made 500 friends with that one, didn't we?

Now that I've had to educate you on the facts......care to answer my question or are you going to continue to stall and blow smoke?

 

[Jroc]

Now that I've had to educate you on the facts......care to answer my question or are you going to continue to stall and blow smoke?

Can you post anything without all that useless bloviating? I stated my position, Like I said I'm not focused on that one person You seemed to think that trail was the be all end all the perfect model for all gitmo detainees were is you're evidence of torture? 3 people water boarded torture? That’s just some stupid liberal talking points, and that’s all you are.

 

[Liability]

Here's a thought: if the discussion deteriorates into a personal range war of slam fests, then it's NOT about the topic of the thread....and therefore should be taken up on another subject thread, like "why I hate so and so?"

Too date, the most virulent complainers of Ghailani sentence offer more supposition, conjecture and a bizarre revision of relevent history than dealing with the actual valid facts regarding the case (as the chronology of the posts shows).

That being said...here's a question: Exactly what sentence were all the critics of the recent Ghailani trial looking for that they would have found satisfactory? And how can they say that a minimum 20 year sentence (mandatory under federal court ruling) with an additional possibility of life without parole hanging in the balance is a "failure"?

As always, tackylib "asks" the wrong questions.

The probable sentence of 20 to life is NOT the problem.

The prospect of an acquittal was more of a problem -- as ALL of the counts on which he GOT acquitted imply. Yes, he did get convicted of ONE count. I suppose we can all take some solace in small mercies. BUT, and this is one of those things that guys like you, tackylib, refuse to acknowledge: that one conviction of that one count is not even guaranteed to survive an appeal.

More importantly, even if you wish to point to that one example as some kind of "shining success," that one instance of a non-damaging outcome is hardly proof that the idea of "trying" these fuckers as mere "criminals" and doing so in our civilian courts of law is a "good idea." It isn't. It remains a terrible idea.

And it remains a terrible idea for a number of reasons, many of which have already been discussed; all of which you choose to simply ignore. You don't even engage in "debate" honestly.

 

[Vanquish]

Well there you go...obviously reframing the issue to suit yourself better.

There's no problem with "the prospect of an acquittal"...either he did it or he didn't. And summary execution for someone...even an enemy...is wrong. The Founding Fathers wouldnt have wanted that in the least. You ARE one of those people who believes in the Founding Fathers, right? You can't just invoke their names when it's convenient.

I really can't stand the idea that we should just kill everyone we THINK is an enemy/terrorist with flimsy proof...just because some redneck beats his chest like a fucking gorilla.

If the proof is there...they'll get convicted. If you don't torture people to get info...perhaps your evidence will be allowed.

See, the rules of decency...even in wartime ...aren't that hard. Good generals can fight wars without stooping so low as you want them to.