Obama opponents NEVER satisfied

[taichiliberal]

JRoc posts two articles from right wing/neocon publications that are whirling like dervishes to try and sully the FACT that you had a Gitmo detainee tried and convicted and sentenced on US soil in a US court.

Facts are facts just because you don't like the source doesn’t make them any less legitimate

Ahhh, but the "facts" of your articles have NOTHING to do with the FACT that you had a successful trial and conviction of a Gitmo detainee on US soil in a US court.....something your neocon/right wingnut pundits, parrots and politicians all swore couldn't happen without major disruptions, endangerment of national security or the loss of conviction. THEY WERE WRONG. So your "facts", as I previously pointed out, are either irrelevent and/or attached to a LOT of supposition and conjecture.

Nothing changes that fact....so JRoc and his ilk STILL yell that the fix is in for the Taliban/Al Qaeda operatives to get off scott free.

Only idiots want to give none citizen terrorist Constitutional rights. You and youre leftist buddies fit the bill perfectly

Ahhh, a childish retort by a defeated neocon parrot such as JRoc.... who cannot/will not acknowledge the FACT that what he whines about actually happened, was successful, and makes his further protestations not only wrong, but insipidly stubborn to the point of irrationality.

As for the article on Holder....since he's not active in any cases and does hold a law firm in his name....it's just a lot of sour grapes about Gitmo folk getting representation in a court of law.

Holder, Obama, And all your fellow leftist have sympathies for terrorists because imperialist America as made these people oppressed them its all the fault of America right?

No genius, Holder is a lawyer who believes in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and our legal system. Like it or not, a defense lawyer is part of the package for the American way....and guess what, you babbling neocon clown? THE SYSTEM WORKED DESPITE ALL THE DOOMSAYING OF YOU NEOCON NEANDERTHALS. Grow up and deal with it.

Well, Ghailani had a lawyer....he got convicted. That's the system, neocons...and it worked under Obama no matter how much you bitch and moan about it.

Yeppie they got a conviction on one count out of thirteen, Thats impressive

As opposed to the Shrub & company booting 500 detainees with no explanation? Yeah, I'd say so...especially since that one count is 20 to life. But do keep proving my initial point, genius...carry on.

 

[taichiliberal]

Tackylib is responding to the post of another member, erroneously thinks he's responding to me, then makes a complete fool of himself. Again.

Classic liberoidal douche bag.

And, tackylib, you moron, I am not a neocon. I am a conservative. Thee's a big difference, there, but schmucks like you who can't even understand who you are talking to have no chance to understand those differences, sadly.

You Marxists/socialist/leftists/liberals/"progressives" need to work on your ability to comprehend the words you bandy about.

Once again, this mental Liability demonstrates how dense he is. Post #45 shows mudwhistle's reponse, which was to my last post. If Mudwhistle was responding to Libability, then he posted in the wrong place, and I will apologize accordingly.

But as you can see, our intellectually impotent Liability is more hyped about a simple response posting error than the actual content of the discussion. He cannot deal with the FACTS of this case...because to do so would mean acknowledging that ALL the neocon driven GOP pundits and partisans were WRONG. So he just avoids it at any point.

Liability claims he's a conservative and not a neocon....someone needs to clue the dumb bunny in that a true conservative does NOT support the Constitution bending/law breaking/dishonest BS that the Shrub and company pulled for 8 years. But as this and past posts have shown, Liability has been a staunch supporter of every neocon, anti-Obama bullhorn that has come down the pike. His denial of such a mindset in leiu of the record is absurd, but what can one expect from someone who thinks "liberoidal", and "Tackylib" are rational, comparative counters to being called a new conservative (or neocon for short).

Someone should clue tackylib in on the fact that HIS mere CLAIM that President Bush and associates somehow engaged in "Constitution bending/law breaking/dishonest BS " doesn't qualify as any kind of fact. The mere opinion of a dishonest liberal asshole still boils down to just being an opinion.

Only a complete neocon parrot would STILL defend the Shrub's bogus invasion of Iraq or Cheney's killing a covert CIA op to get revenge on her husband, or subverting the FISA law. Here's a challenge that our intellectually impotent and cowardly Liability will BS on.....prove JUST ONE item from the following website wrong. www.bushlies.net It contains DOCUMENTED FACTS. If he can, then he might have a basis for his Liability babbling.
Bubbling fools like tackylib predicate most of their "arguments" on the "firm foundation" of assuming AS FACT their absurd premises. Tackylib therefore has my permission to call me a "neocon" all he wants despite the fact that he's flatly wrong. Like his attempts at offering logical arguments in general, so too his labels are devoid of meaning.

And as you can see, Liability continues on the failed path of trying to hide his failure to disprove or discredit the FACTS of my intial post and subject title of this thread. He figures that by changing the subject or just babbling a myriad of sour grapes and personal attacks will do so....but as the chronology of the posts shows, Liability is just another neocon parrot stymied by the reality of a current event that proves a neocon mantra Dead Wrong. Let's watch our neocon Liability fume in frustration.

 

[taichiliberal]

Once again, this mental Liability demonstrates how dense he is. Post #45 shows mudwhistle's reponse, which was to my last post. If Mudwhistle was responding to Libability, then he posted in the wrong place, and I will apologize accordingly.

But as you can see, our intellectually impotent Liability is more hyped about a simple response posting error than the actual content of the discussion. He cannot deal with the FACTS of this case...because to do so would mean acknowledging that ALL the neocon driven GOP pundits and partisans were WRONG. So he just avoids it at any point.

Liability claims he's a conservative and not a neocon....someone needs to clue the dumb bunny in that a true conservative does NOT support the Constitution bending/law breaking/dishonest BS that the Shrub and company pulled for 8 years. But as this and past posts have shown, Liability has been a staunch supporter of every neocon, anti-Obama bullhorn that has come down the pike. His denial of such a mindset in leiu of the record is absurd, but what can one expect from someone who thinks "liberoidal", and "Tackylib" are rational, comparative counters to being called a new conservative (or neocon for short).

The recent elections have been a bitter pill for the NeoGOP criminal enterprise to swallow. The moronic gloating has subsided and reality has sunk in. They are now the victims of thier own false rhetoric. "No Spending" OK bitches... earmarks and special corporate deals have been your bread and butter..NOW WHAT? Blaming everything on OBAMA won't help you now. Liability is still chanting the old montra but doesn't yet realise that there will have to be a change of course if the Boners and the other thieves of the NewGOP want to continue stealing from the American Public. I forsee some screeching to privatise SS and Medicare. Not so much crying about GM...OOPS!! Did OBAMA do someting that WORKED??? NO he dittant!!!

TSA??? We all know that's where Liability goes for sex! OH YA....Those "shuttles"...If ya know what I mean!! He gets to insist on same gender groping and NO ONE IS THE WISER!!!!

Sorry, Smugs, but just as your labels are wrong (for example, you still are unable to even define "neocon") so too is your child-like "analysis."

what do you mean "still unable"? Dummies like you reject any and all definitions, and prefer your own. Here stupid, learn something from Merriam-Webster (remember neocon is short for neo conservative)

Definition of NEOCONSERVATIVE
1: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2: a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means

Conservatives are plenty pleased with the midterm election outcomes.

Really? Then how do you explain this?
Brewing tensions between the Tea Party and GOP

Brewing tensions between the Tea Party and GOP | Reuters

What many liberal idiots (I realize that's often utterly redundant) and bombastic simpletons like YOU cannot grasp is that nobody on the right is taking the election outcome at face value. Because the American people have clearly expressed their disgust with the way the liberals (like this empty headed President) have been doing business, the mutts got their asses handed to them. The GOP majority now in the House is on parole. The intelligent Republicans have figured this much out.

Man, you are a gasbag, ain't ya Liability? Let me clue you in, toodles, your personal supposition and conjecture are a piss in the wind when it comes to documented fact from valid sources that examine the real world. As I've shown above with the link, YOU are living in a dream world.
If they do manage to do what they were actually SENT there to do, they will get electorally rewarded. If they don't toe that line, you can bet on it: they will get electorally punished. And I do believe that this time IS different.

I couldn't care LESS if they are unable to pass any legislation this term. Gridlock is fine by me. The one thing they can all be counted on to do is fund the government with some half-assed continuing budget resolution until they can extricate themselves (somehow) from gridlock. But beyond that, if they can't even figure out a way how to agree to a luncheon recess, I am more than happy.

There you have it folks....this buffoon says "gridlock is fine". He keeps forgetting that it was his party that initiated the various procedures that are now gridlocking the country. See, Liability is like every other low information, willfully ignorant neocon parrot.....they wail and whine about how bad gov't is while trying to ignore the FACT that it was the people THEY VOTE FOR AND SUPPORT that are putting the screws to them. Liability just can't stand that his beliefs in the neocon driven GOP of the Shrub & company were proven WRONG with Ghailani's conviction and sentencing....so he just pulls anything out of Karl Rove's playbook and rambles on. Pity Liability.
As for your fraudulent arguments about the TSA gropers and your incoherent blather about Boehner and Obama and earmarks, suffice it to say that you are only proving yet again that you don't get it. You don't understand. It's not your fault. You're just kind of dim.

Once again, Liability throws out a lot of assertions ...... but as the chronology of the posts shows Liability cannot produce one fact based, logical argument to disprove what I've posted. He's all over the place......like every other neocon numbskull losing their minds in the face of a legal kudo for the Obama administration that proves blowhards like Boehner, McConnell, Gingrich and all the neocon punditry were WRONG!

 

[Jroc]

Ahhh, but the "facts" of your articles have NOTHING to do with the FACT that you had a successful trial and conviction of a Gitmo detainee on US soil in a US court.....something your neocon/right wingnut pundits, parrots and politicians all swore couldn't happen without major disruptions, endangerment of national security or the loss of conviction. THEY WERE WRONG. So your "facts", as I previously pointed out, are either irrelevent and/or attached to a LOT of supposition and conjecture.

Ahhh...I'll try to ignore the fact that you are apparently way too full of yourself..But the facts is that the trial was a failure, even the administration knows it. A success would have been a conviction on at least most of the counts and execution or life in prison

No genius, Holder is a lawyer who believes in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and our legal system. Like it or not, a defense lawyer is part of the package for the American way....and guess what, you babbling neocon clown? THE SYSTEM WORKED DESPITE ALL THE DOOMSAYING OF YOU NEOCON NEANDERTHALS. Grow up and deal with it.

Eric Holder is a joke. Were in the constitution does it say that enemy combatants must be given constitutional rights? Do you think we should read rights to the enemy captured on the battlefield? Or how about that idiot Holder's dropping voter intimidation Charges against the stupid black Panthers? Who's system?

As opposed to the Shrub & company booting 500 detainees with no explanation? Yeah, I'd say so...especially since that one count is 20 to life. But do keep proving my initial point, genius...carry on.

Yep…. because all you wacko libs filed tons of lawsuits stalling the whole process, It must make you proud advocating for the rights of foreign terrorist, claiming torture, while the intelligence people were working on keeping idiots like you from being killed, really quite heart warming Imust say

 

[Liability]

* * * *

If anybody wants to wade through the incoherent verbose gibberish offered by tackylib, click the link icon. Between his totally unneeded verbosity and his lack of original thinking, with the added distraction of annoying font color choices, I won't bother readers with a repeat of his crap.

Suffice it to say that CONSERVATIVES are generally pleased with the outcome ofthe midterms. Tensions between the Tea Party members and the GOP stalwarts is irrelevant to that. Idiots like tackylib tend to conflate "conservative" and "Republican" and one of the very POINTS of the Tea Party movement is that the two are not even nearly synonymous.

The liberal Democratics took the brnt of the Tea Party anger in the midterms. But there is no safe haven for the Republicans on that basis. If the Republican legislators fail to toe the line, they will end up on the receiving end in he next round of primaries.

Booting a bunch of dead-weight liberals out of office was never the main purpose of the Tea Party movement. It was just one of the tools along the way to accomplishing a much bigger task.

Morons like tackylib just lack the ability, the wit, the perception and the intelligence to get it.

 

[taichiliberal]

Ahhh, but the "facts" of your articles have NOTHING to do with the FACT that you had a successful trial and conviction of a Gitmo detainee on US soil in a US court.....something your neocon/right wingnut pundits, parrots and politicians all swore couldn't happen without major disruptions, endangerment of national security or the loss of conviction. THEY WERE WRONG. So your "facts", as I previously pointed out, are either irrelevent and/or attached to a LOT of supposition and conjecture.

Ahhh...I'll try to ignore the fact that you are apparently way too full of yourself..But the facts is that the trial was a failure, even the administration knows it. A success would have been a conviction on at least most of the counts and execution or life in prison


And here's where's the wheels come off of JRoc's wagon, folks. Only a complete and utter neocon asshole would call a mandatory sentence of 20 years to life without parole a "failure".

No genius, Holder is a lawyer who believes in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and our legal system. Like it or not, a defense lawyer is part of the package for the American way....and guess what, you babbling neocon clown? THE SYSTEM WORKED DESPITE ALL THE DOOMSAYING OF YOU NEOCON NEANDERTHALS. Grow up and deal with it.

Eric Holder is a joke. Were in the constitution does it say that enemy combatants must be given constitutional rights? Do you think we should read rights to the enemy captured on the battlefield? Or how about that idiot Holder's dropping voter intimidation Charges against the stupid black Panthers? Who's system?

Wake up, you simp......The Constitution and the Bill of Rights guarantees a right to a fair trail to accused criminals and enemy of the State. The Shrub's "enemy combatants" in Gitmo label was so ambiguous and vague that it resulted in Ghailani spending almost 4 years in custody without any real end game plan. Where is it in Military code does it say that you can try someone on evidence derived from torture? Kind of subverts the whole truth, justice and the American way, doesn't it bunky? And FYI, it was the BUSH DOJ that dropped those voter intimidation charges. GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF HANNITY'S ASS AND DO YOUR HOMEWORK!

As opposed to the Shrub & company booting 500 detainees with no explanation? Yeah, I'd say so...especially since that one count is 20 to life. But do keep proving my initial point, genius...carry on.

Yep…. because all you wacko libs filed tons of lawsuits stalling the whole process, It must make you proud advocating for the rights of foreign terrorist, claiming torture, while the intelligence people were working on keeping idiots like you from being killed, really quite heart warming Imust say

Again, you braying jackass, show me where in the military code that a trial can be based on testimony derived from torture...show me where in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights where the President is the ONLY person who can determine who is an "enemy combatant"? The challenges were grounded in legal precedent...and neither the Shrub or sycophants like YOU can logically explain how keeping people locked up indefinitely (or cutting 500 loose after years) keep in the letter and spirit of legal precedent.

You can talk all the BS you want...but YOU WERE WRONG. Mandatory 20 to life without parole, done safely and economically on US soil....a matter of fact, a matter of history...on Obama's watch. Deal with it, chump.

 

[Revere]

Military trials don't exclude evidence obtained outside of Miranda.

 

[taichiliberal]

* * * *

If anybody wants to wade through the incoherent verbose gibberish offered by tackylib, click the link icon. Between his totally unneeded verbosity and his lack of original thinking, with the added distraction of annoying font color choices, I won't bother readers with a repeat of his crap.

Suffice it to say that CONSERVATIVES are generally pleased with the outcome ofthe midterms. Tensions between the Tea Party members and the GOP stalwarts is irrelevant to that. Idiots like tackylib tend to conflate "conservative" and "Republican" and one of the very POINTS of the Tea Party movement is that the two are not even nearly synonymous.

The liberal Democratics took the brnt of the Tea Party anger in the midterms. But there is no safe haven for the Republicans on that basis. If the Republican legislators fail to toe the line, they will end up on the receiving end in he next round of primaries.

Booting a bunch of dead-weight liberals out of office was never the main purpose of the Tea Party movement. It was just one of the tools along the way to accomplishing a much bigger task.

Morons like tackylib just lack the ability, the wit, the perception and the intelligence to get it.

Ahhh, the mental flatulence of Liability.

He's such an intellectual coward, folks....so much so that when I logically and factually wipe the floor with him, he REFUSES TO DISPLAY THE PREVIOUS POST in hopes that his collection of opinion, supposition and conjecture seems rational and true.

Here's why

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3015914-post123.html

And just to give the audience a "for instance" of what a willfully ignorant neocon parrot Liability is......the majority of Dems that loss seats in the House were "BLUE DOG" Dems.

But hey, anything that factually proves Liability wrong, he considers "irrelevent".

I'm done with this neocon Liability, folks. He's like every other neocon partisan asshole, seething with anger that Obama was RIGHT on a point....the FACT that a terrorist conspirator is doing a mandatory 20 years to life without parole is a secondary matter to him. I'll let him continue to spew his venom and BS

 

[taichiliberal]

Military trials don't exclude evidence obtained outside of Miranda.

Nor do they include evidence obtained via torture.

Just deal with the reality.....Obama was right and you and your ilk were wrong on this count.

 

[Revere]

FDR was right. He tried enemy combatants and spies in military courts and shot them. Didn't matter where the evidence came from.

 

[Rozman]

This verdict might be overturned if the Libs get their way.Apparently this guys rights may have been violated.His rights to kill people.The sentence they really wanted was...."bad bad bad terrorist.If you try not to kill us anymore we will try not to upset those oh so sensitive Muslims".

 

[Liability]

* * * *

If anybody wants to wade through the incoherent verbose gibberish offered by tackylib, click the link icon. Between his totally unneeded verbosity and his lack of original thinking, with the added distraction of annoying font color choices, I won't bother readers with a repeat of his crap.

Suffice it to say that CONSERVATIVES are generally pleased with the outcome ofthe midterms. Tensions between the Tea Party members and the GOP stalwarts is irrelevant to that. Idiots like tackylib tend to conflate "conservative" and "Republican" and one of the very POINTS of the Tea Party movement is that the two are not even nearly synonymous.

The liberal Democratics took the brnt of the Tea Party anger in the midterms. But there is no safe haven for the Republicans on that basis. If the Republican legislators fail to toe the line, they will end up on the receiving end in he next round of primaries.

Booting a bunch of dead-weight liberals out of office was never the main purpose of the Tea Party movement. It was just one of the tools along the way to accomplishing a much bigger task.

Morons like tackylib just lack the ability, the wit, the perception and the intelligence to get it.

Ahhh, the mental flatulence of Liability.

He's such an intellectual coward, folks....so much so that when I logically and factually wipe the floor with him, he REFUSES TO DISPLAY THE PREVIOUS POST in hopes that his collection of opinion, supposition and conjecture seems rational and true.

Here's why

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3015914-post123.html

And just to give the audience a "for instance" of what a willfully ignorant neocon parrot Liability is......the majority of Dems that loss seats in the House were "BLUE DOG" Dems.

But hey, anything that factually proves Liability wrong, he considers "irrelevent".

I'm done with this neocon Liability, folks. He's like every other neocon partisan asshole, seething with anger that Obama was RIGHT on a point....the FACT that a terrorist conspirator is doing a mandatory 20 years to life without parole is a secondary matter to him. I'll let him continue to spew his venom and BS

Speaking of farts, tackylib left his stench yet again.

Tackylib, you loser, just man up. Try to make your argument in coherent terms. I'm not gonna wade through your endless verbosity. Offer us your notion of a major premise. Offer a minor premise or two. Make a coherent statement of the alleged "logic" you supposedly rely on. State your conclusion. BUT, since you are not particularly credible, by all means DO provide citation and support for your allegations of "fact." Links are good.

Give that a whirl.

But you are an illogical pussy uber-lib. So, you won't.

 

[taichiliberal]

FDR was right. He tried enemy combatants and spies in military courts and shot them. Didn't matter where the evidence came from.

Your last sentence is PURE conjecture that flies in the face of historical fact. And remember, WWII was with two Nations and that declared open war against the USA with their allies. Ghailani was targeted by the FBI as a conspirator in an embassy bombing.

BIG difference.

My previous points stand valid.....of which I note you avoided conceding.

 

[taichiliberal]

This verdict might be overturned if the Libs get their way.Apparently this guys rights may have been violated.His rights to kill people.The sentence they really wanted was...."bad bad bad terrorist.If you try not to kill us anymore we will try not to upset those oh so sensitive Muslims".

What in the hell are you babbling about, Roz? I swear, my thread title is an understatement compared to the irrational bullhorn being sounded by you and your fellow neocon parrots! It just burns your ideological ass that all the neocon GOP politicos, pundits and supporters were proven DEAD WRONG as a matter of fact and history on this point.

So rather than just say, "boy, that's great...another terrorist guy off the streets"...you fabricate all types of slander in hopes that it might come true......which would mean potential harm to Americans an people around the world...but what do you care? As long as the neocon GOP is right, and the Shrub's bogus legacy remains intact, right?

Guys like you disgust me, Roz.

 

[Trajan]

Again, you braying jackass, show me where in the military code that a trial can be based on testimony derived from torture..

'War on Terror' Trials Could Allow Evidence Obtained Through Torture — The Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas (CSHRA)

In 2006, several versions of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) were introduced. The MCA created rules for the detainment, interrogation and trials of detainees in the War on Terror. It was eventually passed and was signed by President George W. Bush.

Note: This page covers the final version of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and its aftermath.

The MCA also authorized the commissions to use relaxed rules on hearsay and evidence — compared to civilian courts — like the ones struck down in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Defendants can be convicted based on second-hand summaries of statements obtained through coercive interrogations without the opportunity to confront their accusers. [12]

Military Commissions Act of 2006 - SourceWatch
_______________________________________________

and an impeccable source...

The new law also explicitly authorizes the use of evidence obtained in violation of the provisions of the McCain anti-torture amendment, so long as it was obtained before its enactment nine months ago. As a result, evidence that was beaten out of a witness - and evidence obtained in torture cells in Syria, Jordan and Egypt - could be the basis for a conviction of a detainee in an American proceeding.

t r u t h o u t | Stephen Rohde | Military Commissions Act Shames the Constitution and Weakens America

and MCA challenge..

COURT ENDORSES CURBS ON APPEAL BY U.S. DETAINEES
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: February 21, 2007

The Supreme Court previously ruled twice that federal statutes empowered the courts to consider Guant?mo prisoners' habeas corpus petitions challenging the grounds for their detention. In response to those rulings, Congress twice rewrote law to limit the detainees' avenues of appeal. The most recent rewriting was at issue in Tuesday's 2-to-1 decision.

That law, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, was signed by President Bush last October. Its enactment followed the Supreme Court's rejection of his administration's earlier arguments that the right of habeas corpus -- the fundamental right, centuries old, to ask a judge for release from unjust imprisonment -- did not apply to foreigners being held outside the United States as enemy combatants.

The new law explicitly eliminated the federal courts' jurisdiction over habeas challenges by such prisoners. It instead set up military panels to review the justification of detention in individual cases, with limited right of appeal to the courts afterward.
COURT ENDORSES CURBS ON APPEAL BY U.S. DETAINEES - NYTimes.com




if you discover contradictory sources I am perfectly willing to listen.

 

[Jroc]

FDR was right. He tried enemy combatants and spies in military courts and shot them. Didn't matter where the evidence came from.

Your last sentence is PURE conjecture that flies in the face of historical fact. And remember, WWII was with two Nations and that declared open war against the USA with their allies. Ghailani was targeted by the FBI as a conspirator in an embassy bombing.

BIG difference.

Exactly you idiot, which is why the Germans had more of a right under Geneva conventions than your buddies the terrorists captured on foreign soil

 

[taichiliberal]

FDR was right. He tried enemy combatants and spies in military courts and shot them. Didn't matter where the evidence came from.

Your last sentence is PURE conjecture that flies in the face of historical fact. And remember, WWII was with two Nations and that declared open war against the USA with their allies. Ghailani was targeted by the FBI as a conspirator in an embassy bombing.

BIG difference.

Exactly you idiot, which is why the Germans had more of a right under Geneva conventions than your buddies the terrorists captured on foreign soil

Okay, let's try this again....this time I'll dumb it down for you, Jroc:

WWII involved NATIONS declaring WAR on each other...with open field combat and open acts of massive troop aggression. Combatants CAPTURED were SOLDIERS, thus they fell under the protection of the Geneva Convention.

Ghailani was wanted by the FBI in connection to the bombing of an embassy that killed US personnel that was suspected of being an Al Qaeda connected operation. The current "war on terror" is actually an attempt to stop organizations that use terror tactics....these organizations are NOT a nation, NOT a massive army, navy or air force....which is why a federal court would be more suited to try the case....as with any other similar act that would fall under FBI jurisdiction.


BIG DIFFERENCE

As I asked someone with your similar mindset before on this thread....is it customary for the Military tribunals to use testimony born of torture to get a conviction? If so, that sort of throws the whole truth, justice and the American way out the window, right?

The Shrub's ability to deem anyone an "enemy combatant" and toss them into Gitmo wasn't working out well....releasing 500 people after years of detainment and interrogation without explanation wasn't a positive thing...and holding others indefinitely without some definitive end game and being highly secretive wasn't exactly the smartest thing to do.

So instead, we have Ghailani tried in federal court...convicted and sentenced. America is secure, NYC wasn't ground to a halt and a conspirator with terrorists is off the streets in jail LEGALLY.

Had Ghailani been caught with a group of Al Qaeda in a firefight with US soldiers in Afghanistan, then your comparison to WWII would have been much closer (but no cigar).

So again, YOU WERE WRONG.....GROW UP AND DEAL WITH IT.

 

[Jroc]

The genus of Eric Holder....


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOQt_mP6Pgg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOQt_mP6Pgg[/ame]


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjAXcU89gEk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjAXcU89gEk[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bDkZmRNvjg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bDkZmRNvjg[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch6IZ8zmkGQ"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch6IZ8zmkGQ[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3x2MOgaGNw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3x2MOgaGNw[/ame]

 

[ConHog]

Why some of yall get so worked up over the alleged civil rights of some scumbags who actively tried to kill as many US citizens as humanly possible is beyond me. You DO realize that those very scumbags would love nothing more than to kill you and your entire family don't you?

Fuck the terrorists, wring them for every drop of information they have then shoot em in the fucking head.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

WWII involved NATIONS declaring WAR on each other...with open field combat and open acts of massive troop aggression. Combatants CAPTURED were SOLDIERS, thus they fell under the protection of the Geneva Convention.

Ghailani was wanted by the FBI in connection to the bombing of an embassy that killed US personnel that was suspected of being an Al Qaeda connected operation. The current "war on terror" is actually an attempt to stop organizations that use terror tactics....these organizations are NOT a nation, NOT a massive army, navy or air force....which is why a federal court would be more suited to try the case....as with any other similar act that would fall under FBI jurisdiction.


BIG DIFFERENCE

* * * *

Tackylib's infantile analysis is precisely what's wrong with the "thinking" of the modern American "liberal" on the topic of fighting the terrorists.

Tackylib will never be able to grasp just how wrong he is. He is a modern American uber lib and thus his mind is rigidly incapable of grasping obviously valid rejoinders to his silly notions.

If a NATION declares war on us (think Germany or think Japan which didn't bother with the declaration before their sneak attack), then obviously we will be at war as soon as we authorize the use of our military to engage the enemy. The fighting, historically, has indeed been done on battlefields between uniformed combatants. Tackylib recognizes this as "war" and this is ALL he is capable of recognizing as war.

But if an organized non-governmental operation of international scope whose combatants do not wear identifying uniforms declares war on us (sneak attacks ring a bell, anyone?) and WE reciprocate by authorizing the use of our military to fight them, and then proceed to do just that, according to idiots like Tackylib, we are "not" at "war."

Instead, jerk-offs like Tackylib, who are incapable of rational thinking, insist that the actions of the groups like al qaeda are merely criminal actions and should be treated as such by law enforcement (like the FBI and local police departments) and not by the military and intelligence agencies.

Federal Courts, say the idiots like Tackylib, are better suited to deal with these asshole al qaeda types. Why? Because (using his circular "reasoning") Courts deal with "crimes." When confronted with the fact that the information used to capture such scumbags may have been derived from our military/intelligence efforts, and that the information must not be permitted to get to the hands of our enemies for a wide variety of reasons, douche bags like Tackylib dismiss the objection. Yet, if we treat these captured enemies as mere criminals, then they would be entitled to "criminal" trials, and this entails giving them "discovery." For a failure to share such "discovery" the penalty could be dismissal of the case.

Why would we CHOOSE to place OURSELVES in the position of having to confront the dilemma of either sharing military/intelligence secrets WITH the very fucking enemy we are fighting or being ordered by our own legal system to let the captured enemy go?

No. When the faux "logic" of idiot uber libs like Tackylib reveals that we are creating such completely avoidable (false) dilemmas for ourselves, we have an obligation in logic to reject the original mistaken premise. Terrorists are not mere criminals. They are enemy warriors. Illegal combatants are still combatants.

Tackylib, where the result of your would-be "logic" is so perverse and untenable, it is your would-be "logic" that is mistaken.

But as I said, you will never be able to admit this or even grasp it. Thankfully, your extremely shallow thinking is the thinking of a distinct minority.