Obama opponents NEVER satisfied

[taichiliberal]

You know the libs want to put America on trial, it's not about the terrorists with them, and it’s about what America has done to cause the muslims to hate us. If KSM were put on trail in New York these libs would be sucking up all that Anti American bullshit they'd have a lot of sympathies for the terrorist and their dislike of this country will grow. Bush and Cheney tortured that poor man

Poor Jroc....like all good little neocon parrots, he's just losing his feathers over the FACT that the Ghailani trial has proven the neocon punditry wrong...and squawking all types of supposition and conjecture as if it's Gospel.

You're a joke, Jroc.... a living, breathing neocon joke. Carry on.

 

[Vanquish]

It is absolutely retarded that some conservatives think that all decency and morals should fly out the window as soon as the borders are in the rear view mirror.

Libs want to put the country on trial? WHAAAA? That is such bullshit. One of the things that makes this country great is that we CAN speak out about what we feel our country does right and does wrong. Hell, you people talk about Obama and the government every day...how the FUCK is that not anti-American. How can you sit there, and type with a straight face, that your political enemies are anti-american but YOU are the only standard bearer for the REAL America?

Fucking sickening really.

Do you think that during the War of Independence that evil, vile things weren't done? Are you that naive as to think it was cherries and lollipops? Fuck no. War is hell. And the Founding Fathers ended up saying that the rights they put in the constitution were INALIENABLE to ALL men. Not just the ones within our borders. And the consequence is...when you torture them...our military and citizens are more likely to get tortured outside the US.

 

[Jroc]

Vanquish wrote:

Do you think that during the War of Independence that evil, vile things weren't done? Are you that naive as to think it was cherries and lollipops? Fuck no. War is hell. And the Founding Fathers ended up saying that the rights they put in the constitution were INALIENABLE to ALL men. Not just the ones within our borders. And the consequence is...when you torture them...our military and citizens are more likely to get tortured outside the US.

Oh gotcha...Our founding Fathers were terrorist.. No better then KSM. And it's not the U.S. constitution anymore it's the WORLD CONSTITUION. Stupids libs.

taichiliberal wrote:

Poor Jroc....like all good little neocon parrots, he's just losing his feathers over the FACT that the Ghailani trial has proven the neocon punditry wrong...and squawking all types of supposition and conjecture as if it's Gospel.

Poor little idiot trashylib.. The new model now is Gahlani, the perfect prosecution. You're the one that’s a joke, even Obama knows that trial was basically a failure. People like you would like nothing more then to have a civilian trial for KSM our military tactics out there for all our enemies to see, while this wacko spews his anti American bull..So tell me Mr. trashylib, if you’re family was under this possibility of being murdered by a terror attack would you not do everything possible to get info from these people? Probably not because, you're a liberal wussy "Please Mr. terrorist will you tell us were that bomb is? "Please...:cuckoo

 

[Vanquish]

Wow you're retarded. "Do everything possible?" Do you even hear yourself? You absolutely have no morals and definitely shouldnt be waving the flag in your sig.

 

[Liability]

And yet none of his critics have the cojones to acknowledge that his administration did what tthey said couldn't be done....try, convict and sentence a terrorist collaborator/conspirator in civilian court without endangering national security.

That might have something to do with the fact that you are lying, tackylib.

The criticism was NEVER that it couldn't be done.

The criticism was that it SHOULDN'T be done.

Securing the conviction (if it withstands the appellate rounds) of one stinking count is not exactly comforting.

Can't you grasp that this means that it was a freaking very near miss? It was just that close to being a complete acquittal.

And as OJ proves, an acquittal doesn't mean the guy didn't do it.

Folks, I just LOVE it when dumb neocon toots like Liability make these grand statements based solely on their personal low information derived from the likes of World Net Daily, NewsMax, Rev. Moon, Murdoch, Crowley, etc.

I love it because then I just show something like this:


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.”

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.

Representative Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) “said he feared that Mr. Mohammed and his accused co-conspirators would try to make the trial ‘a circus’ and use it as a platform to push their ideology.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) recently wrote: “a judge may very well agree with the legal arguments of Guantanamo detainees and order them released into the United States.”
Third Way - Publications - Publication Content


The Ghailani trial proved them wrong...but they don't have the honesty, courage or morality to admit such.
And once again, we'll see Liability repeat his idiocy despite it's contradiction to reality....so much more to pity him.

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.

 

[Vanquish]

You've made a decent parsing of shouldn't and couldn't...but honestly that's looking at the letter and not the spirit. (i.e. if that's all you've got...it aint much)

Republicans said that it shouldnt be done because it wouldnt get the desired effect. It happened and while it didn't get an OMGSHOWKANDAAWWWWESNAP! response...the guy's in for life.

So yeah, the idea that it was the wrong course of action, given the desired effect is wrong.

 

[Liability]

You've made a decent parsing of shouldn't and couldn't...but honestly that's looking at the letter and not the spirit. (i.e. if that's all you've got...it aint much)

Republicans said that it shouldnt be done because it wouldnt get the desired effect. It happened and while it didn't get an OMGSHOWKANDAAWWWWESNAP! response...the guy's in for life.

So yeah, the idea that it was the wrong course of action, given the desired effect is wrong.

Wrong. That which cannot be done is not the same as that which should not be done.

The CLAIM made was that Republicans had argued that such trials COULD NOT be done. That claim is untrue.

What Republicans DID urge (and still urge) is that it SHOULD NOT be done since it's a dangerously stupid idea. And that's true. It is dangerous, it is stupid and it's completely unnecessary to take such risks.

The balance of your post is kind of on the gibberish side.

It is a dangerous and stupid idea to treat the al qaeda captured combatants as mere criminals. What they have done and what they are doing is not a criminal matter so much as it is a matter of war.

If we captured a Nazi spy in the USA during WWII, we wouldn't give him a "trial" for some crime here in our civilian courts. At BEST (from his perspective) we'd hold him until the end of hostilities without any trial. It's not a question of guilt or innocence, and therefore a "trial" is absolutely beside the point. Indeed, a captured enemy spy (usually one engaged in "fighting" without a uniform) would be subject to summary execution. We may not summarily execute al qaeda fucks, but we sure as hell have every legitimate right to detain them without any fucking "trials" until the hostilities end. If that's "never," then that's when they get released. Too bad. So sad. Eat shit, motherfuckers.

Somewhere along the way, we lost our way. Our Courts went a bit rogue on us. And our politicians got led around by the nose by a bunch of ACLU types who also simply do not get it.

 

[Vanquish]

So you're going back to the letter of what was said. Fair enough. You didn't really have to type all that drivel to get there, but you're still being either a) stoopid or b) intellectually dishonest.

I realize you've been on here a long time...but do you really get off that much on "beating a lib" that such a miniscule distinction results in a huge giz in your pants? Apparently so.

But thanks. Without you, all would be lost. With you, librulz would take over the country and all law and order would have been lost. You're the savior the world has been looking for.

 

[HUGGY]

You've made a decent parsing of shouldn't and couldn't...but honestly that's looking at the letter and not the spirit. (i.e. if that's all you've got...it aint much)

Republicans said that it shouldnt be done because it wouldnt get the desired effect. It happened and while it didn't get an OMGSHOWKANDAAWWWWESNAP! response...the guy's in for life.

So yeah, the idea that it was the wrong course of action, given the desired effect is wrong.

Wrong. That which cannot be done is not the same as that which should not be done.

The CLAIM made was that Republicans had argued that such trials COULD NOT be done. That claim is untrue.

What Republicans DID urge (and still urge) is that it SHOULD NOT be done since it's a dangerously stupid idea. And that's true. It is dangerous, it is stupid and it's completely unnecessary to take such risks.

The balance of your post is kind of on the gibberish side.

It is a dangerous and stupid idea to treat the al qaeda captured combatants as mere criminals. What they have done and what they are doing is not a criminal matter so much as it is a matter of war.

If we captured a Nazi spy in the USA during WWII, we wouldn't give him a "trial" for some crime here in our civilian courts. At BEST (from his perspective) we'd hold him until the end of hostilities without any trial. It's not a question of guilt or innocence, and therefore a "trial" is absolutely beside the point. Indeed, a captured enemy spy (usually one engaged in "fighting" without a uniform) would be subject to summary execution. We may not summarily execute al qaeda fucks, but we sure as hell have every legitimate right to detain them without any fucking "trials" until the hostilities end. If that's "never," then that's when they get released. Too bad. So sad. Eat shit, motherfuckers.

Somewhere along the way, we lost our way. Our Courts went a bit rogue on us. And our politicians got led around by the nose by a bunch of ACLU types who also simply do not get it.

Everything is DANGEROUS to you babies!!!! OMG!!!!! We ARE ALL GONNA DIE!!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!! HIDE THE WOMEN AND THE CHILLUNS!!!!

Most Americans are getting worn out on the constant call that the sky is falling.

Why don't you make a numerical list of the "End Of The World" warnings and try to put a sliver of perspective on the hopelessness of our situation?

 

[Vanquish]

If we captured a Nazi spy in the USA during WWII, we wouldn't give him a "trial" for some crime here in our civilian courts. At BEST (from his perspective) we'd hold him until the end of hostilities without any trial. It's not a question of guilt or innocence, and therefore a "trial" is absolutely beside the point. Indeed, a captured enemy spy (usually one engaged in "fighting" without a uniform) would be subject to summary execution. We may not summarily execute al qaeda fucks, but we sure as hell have every legitimate right to detain them without any fucking "trials" until the hostilities end. If that's "never," then that's when they get released. Too bad. So sad. Eat shit, motherfuckers.

This is a good start at a legal analysis, but it fails. Start again with ex parte Quirin and keep moving forward following what the actual law is. It's so funny to see non-lawyers try and act all legal like.

 

[Liability]

So you're going back to the letter of what was said. Fair enough. You didn't really have to type all that drivel to get there, but you're still being either a) stoopid or b) intellectually dishonest.

I realize you've been on here a long time...but do you really get off that much on "beating a lib" that such a miniscule distinction results in a huge giz in your pants? Apparently so.

But thanks. Without you, all would be lost. With you, librulz would take over the country and all law and order would have been lost. You're the savior the world has been looking for.

Disagreeing with you and your facile childish "analysis" doesn't constitute stupidity or intellectual dishonesty nor does it constitute drivel.

Quite the contrary is true.

The distinction which you intellectually dishonest libs pretend is "miniscule" is simply not miniscule.

If you folks can't speak with more precision, accuracy and honesty, the fault lies entirely with you.

Again, what was CLAIMED was that the GOP had supposedly said that civilian trials for al qaeda terrorists COULD not be held here. The problem is that the claim was false. The GOP said no such thing.

Words have meaning. Your petty distinctions don't.

 

[Liability]

You've made a decent parsing of shouldn't and couldn't...but honestly that's looking at the letter and not the spirit. (i.e. if that's all you've got...it aint much)

Republicans said that it shouldnt be done because it wouldnt get the desired effect. It happened and while it didn't get an OMGSHOWKANDAAWWWWESNAP! response...the guy's in for life.

So yeah, the idea that it was the wrong course of action, given the desired effect is wrong.

Wrong. That which cannot be done is not the same as that which should not be done.

The CLAIM made was that Republicans had argued that such trials COULD NOT be done. That claim is untrue.

What Republicans DID urge (and still urge) is that it SHOULD NOT be done since it's a dangerously stupid idea. And that's true. It is dangerous, it is stupid and it's completely unnecessary to take such risks.

The balance of your post is kind of on the gibberish side.

It is a dangerous and stupid idea to treat the al qaeda captured combatants as mere criminals. What they have done and what they are doing is not a criminal matter so much as it is a matter of war.

If we captured a Nazi spy in the USA during WWII, we wouldn't give him a "trial" for some crime here in our civilian courts. At BEST (from his perspective) we'd hold him until the end of hostilities without any trial. It's not a question of guilt or innocence, and therefore a "trial" is absolutely beside the point. Indeed, a captured enemy spy (usually one engaged in "fighting" without a uniform) would be subject to summary execution. We may not summarily execute al qaeda fucks, but we sure as hell have every legitimate right to detain them without any fucking "trials" until the hostilities end. If that's "never," then that's when they get released. Too bad. So sad. Eat shit, motherfuckers.

Somewhere along the way, we lost our way. Our Courts went a bit rogue on us. And our politicians got led around by the nose by a bunch of ACLU types who also simply do not get it.

Everything is DANGEROUS to you babies!!!! OMG!!!!! We ARE ALL GONNA DIE!!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!! HIDE THE WOMEN AND THE CHILLUNS!!!!

Most Americans are getting worn out on the constant call that the sky is falling.

Why don't you make a numerical list of the "End Of The World" warnings and try to put a sliver of perspective on the hopelessness of our situation?

Oh nozies. Smugs called us "babies." Worse yet, he mocked the notion that unauthorized disclosures of State secrets might be dangerous.

As Smugly's arguments go, that is the height of sophistication!

Whatever can we now say?

 

[Liability]

If we captured a Nazi spy in the USA during WWII, we wouldn't give him a "trial" for some crime here in our civilian courts. At BEST (from his perspective) we'd hold him until the end of hostilities without any trial. It's not a question of guilt or innocence, and therefore a "trial" is absolutely beside the point. Indeed, a captured enemy spy (usually one engaged in "fighting" without a uniform) would be subject to summary execution. We may not summarily execute al qaeda fucks, but we sure as hell have every legitimate right to detain them without any fucking "trials" until the hostilities end. If that's "never," then that's when they get released. Too bad. So sad. Eat shit, motherfuckers.

This is a good start at a legal analysis, but it fails. Start again with ex parte Quirin and keep moving forward following what the actual law is. It's so funny to see non-lawyers try and act all legal like.

No. It's a decent start, alright. But it doesn't fail.

Instead of just naming a case, why not make an actual argument, Vanquish, if you have the ability.

In your humble estimation, tell us the relevant holding of Ex Parte Quirin. Then, on that undoubtedly firm foundation, construct your "argument' as to how it crushes the argument I had offered.

In other words, child, don't presume to lecture the rest of us on how to engage in a good solid legal analysis. Lead the way. Impress the hell out of everyone.

 

[Vanquish]

So you're going back to the letter of what was said. Fair enough. You didn't really have to type all that drivel to get there, but you're still being either a) stoopid or b) intellectually dishonest.

I realize you've been on here a long time...but do you really get off that much on "beating a lib" that such a miniscule distinction results in a huge giz in your pants? Apparently so.

But thanks. Without you, all would be lost. With you, librulz would take over the country and all law and order would have been lost. You're the savior the world has been looking for.

Disagreeing with you and your facile childish "analysis" doesn't constitute stupidity or intellectual dishonesty nor does it constitute drivel.

Quite the contrary is true.

The distinction which you intellectually dishonest libs pretend is "miniscule" is simply not miniscule.

If you folks can't speak with more precision, accuracy and honesty, the fault lies entirely with you.

Again, what was CLAIMED was that the GOP had supposedly said that civilian trials for al qaeda terrorists COULD not be held here. The problem is that the claim was false. The GOP said no such thing.

Words have meaning. Your petty distinctions don't.

Actually you're the one making the petty distinction. Thanks for continuing to prove my point. If you'd get your head out of your ass for even a minute, you'd read what I wrote. You win the little "omgz it's should not could" bullshit argument. If winning that makes you think your cock is larger, go have fun playing with your new toy.

The REAL point...is that your side said it shouldnt be done because the result wouldnt get achieved.

WAKE UP!!! IT WAS ACHIEVED.

So either move on from your semantic win (bullshit as it really is) and admit that the fucker got life...or keep repeating the same tired drivel.

Oh wait...I already know which one you're gonna do. Prove me right. Please.

 

[Liability]

So you're going back to the letter of what was said. Fair enough. You didn't really have to type all that drivel to get there, but you're still being either a) stoopid or b) intellectually dishonest.

I realize you've been on here a long time...but do you really get off that much on "beating a lib" that such a miniscule distinction results in a huge giz in your pants? Apparently so.

But thanks. Without you, all would be lost. With you, librulz would take over the country and all law and order would have been lost. You're the savior the world has been looking for.

Disagreeing with you and your facile childish "analysis" doesn't constitute stupidity or intellectual dishonesty nor does it constitute drivel.

Quite the contrary is true.

The distinction which you intellectually dishonest libs pretend is "miniscule" is simply not miniscule.

If you folks can't speak with more precision, accuracy and honesty, the fault lies entirely with you.

Again, what was CLAIMED was that the GOP had supposedly said that civilian trials for al qaeda terrorists COULD not be held here. The problem is that the claim was false. The GOP said no such thing.

Words have meaning. Your petty distinctions don't.

Actually you're the one making the petty distinction. Thanks for continuing to prove my point. If you'd get your head out of your ass for even a minute, you'd read what I wrote. You win the little "omgz it's should not could" bullshit argument. If winning that makes you think your cock is larger, go have fun playing with your new toy.

The REAL point...is that your side said it shouldnt be done because the result wouldnt get achieved.

WAKE UP!!! IT WAS ACHIEVED.

So either move on from your semantic win (bullshit as it really is) and admit that the fucker got life...or keep repeating the same tired drivel.

Oh wait...I already know which one you're gonna do. Prove me right. Please.

No. Actually, I draw the only valid distinction and you try to dismiss it as "miniscule." You are entirely wrong.

This explains why you are unable to offer a coherent or intelligent argument so far.

By the way, stupid, nobody can "admit" that the fucker "got" life since (you legal genius) he hasn't been sentenced yet, you moron.

However, I don't dispute that he is eligible to get 20 to life. And I also wouldn't be surprised if he gets the maximum sentence.

Does that mean that the trial in our civilian courts of law was the "right" way to go? In your simplistic world, that would appear to be the case. But in the real world, one such outcome (if it doesn't get reversed on appeal) does not make the case that these matters should be tried in our civilian courts of law.

 

[Vanquish]

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

 

[taichiliberal]

Vanquish wrote:

Do you think that during the War of Independence that evil, vile things weren't done? Are you that naive as to think it was cherries and lollipops? Fuck no. War is hell. And the Founding Fathers ended up saying that the rights they put in the constitution were INALIENABLE to ALL men. Not just the ones within our borders. And the consequence is...when you torture them...our military and citizens are more likely to get tortured outside the US.

Oh gotcha...Our founding Fathers were terrorist.. No better then KSM. And it's not the U.S. constitution anymore it's the WORLD CONSTITUION. Stupids libs.

And here folks, is where we see the wheels come off of JRoc's little neocon train.....JRoc's response ist TOTALLY dishonest and irrational...anyone with an 8th grade reading level knows that Vanquish stated NOTHING of the sort of nonsense Jroc is babbling about.

taichiliberal wrote:

Poor Jroc....like all good little neocon parrots, he's just losing his feathers over the FACT that the Ghailani trial has proven the neocon punditry wrong...and squawking all types of supposition and conjecture as if it's Gospel.

Poor little idiot trashylib.. The new model now is Gahlani, the perfect prosecution. You're the one that’s a joke, even Obama knows that trial was basically a failure. People like you would like nothing more then to have a civilian trial for KSM our military tactics out there for all our enemies to see, while this wacko spews his anti American bull..So tell me Mr. trashylib, if you’re family was under this possibility of being murdered by a terror attack would you not do everything possible to get info from these people? Probably not because, you're a liberal wussy "Please Mr. terrorist will you tell us were that bomb is? "Please...:cuckoo

Once again, we see the irrational and insipidly stubborn mindset of the willfully ignorant neocon parrot. They ignore the FACTS that prove their beliefs wrong....and if they cannot ignore those facts, then they go off on a supposition and conjecture filled rant to try and distract from their losing the argument.

What our "enemies" have seen from Ghailani's trial is that without torture derived testimony, he was found GUILTY...and he will be doing 20 years before being considered for parole...if he doesn't get the additional life without parole sentence. They've seen the American justice system work...which detracts from the propaganda they used based on the BS of Gitmo.

But neocon parrots like JRoc are not interested in that....they are more interested in being RIGHT...no matter if the propaganda that has been bullhorned since 2008 was proven dead wrong, and that the US prevailed over it's enemies on yet another venue....Jroc needs to have everything done by Obama fail, so that the disasterous Bush years will have their mythology intact....so JRoc just shovels the same old dodgy Rovian BS.

JRoc is one sorry SOB, folks.....he only cares about America's and American safety if it means his ideology is intact. Otherwise, he could care less.

 

[taichiliberal]

That might have something to do with the fact that you are lying, tackylib.

The criticism was NEVER that it couldn't be done.

The criticism was that it SHOULDN'T be done.

Securing the conviction (if it withstands the appellate rounds) of one stinking count is not exactly comforting.

Can't you grasp that this means that it was a freaking very near miss? It was just that close to being a complete acquittal.

And as OJ proves, an acquittal doesn't mean the guy didn't do it.

Folks, I just LOVE it when dumb neocon toots like Liability make these grand statements based solely on their personal low information derived from the likes of World Net Daily, NewsMax, Rev. Moon, Murdoch, Crowley, etc.

I love it because then I just show something like this:


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.”

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.

Representative Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) “said he feared that Mr. Mohammed and his accused co-conspirators would try to make the trial ‘a circus’ and use it as a platform to push their ideology.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) recently wrote: “a judge may very well agree with the legal arguments of Guantanamo detainees and order them released into the United States.”
Third Way - Publications - Publication Content


The Ghailani trial proved them wrong...but they don't have the honesty, courage or morality to admit such.
And once again, we'll see Liability repeat his idiocy despite it's contradiction to reality....so much more to pity him.

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.

 

[Liability]

Folks, I just LOVE it when dumb neocon toots like Liability make these grand statements based solely on their personal low information derived from the likes of World Net Daily, NewsMax, Rev. Moon, Murdoch, Crowley, etc.

I love it because then I just show something like this:


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.”

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.

Representative Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) “said he feared that Mr. Mohammed and his accused co-conspirators would try to make the trial ‘a circus’ and use it as a platform to push their ideology.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) recently wrote: “a judge may very well agree with the legal arguments of Guantanamo detainees and order them released into the United States.”
Third Way - Publications - Publication Content


The Ghailani trial proved them wrong...but they don't have the honesty, courage or morality to admit such.
And once again, we'll see Liability repeat his idiocy despite it's contradiction to reality....so much more to pity him.

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.

 

[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....