Rudy Blasts Obama's Idiotic Move

[sealybobo]

Rachel Maddow exposed Rudy last night for being a political hack/fear mongering right wing bullshit artist.

She showed Rudy contradicting himself a couple years ago. This is a political stunt. Their trying to win some Senate seat in Illinois. So they don't want to take in enemy combatants from GITMO, even though they have a prison with empty cells.

And even though it would create jobs and bring money to the town that would house these prisoners, and most people in the town want those jobs.

Why, because that would make Chicago a target for terrorism? Oh yea, I guess the terrorists never thought about Chicago before. They said they are worried Ohare would become overwhelmed with people who show up to visit the terrorists. How obvious they are trying to scare back support from conservatives who probably stopped voting for the GOP because they didn't keep us safe. All they did was scare us to think that the liberals can't keep us safe. That was the only reason people voted GOP in 2002, 2004, 2006. Not realizing we were hit on their watch, and because of their lazyness. They were even negligable for 9-11. Then the largest growth of government, the Dept. of Homeland Security. What a joke.

So now they want to keep GITMO open because they are afraid? Liars and cowards.

Do Republicans really think this is going to work? No one is scared anymore. They are a bunch of pussies. They even try to say Fort Hood was terrorism and we got hit on Obama's watch.

I heard last night that even conservatives are telling the GOP to stop playing politics with things like terrorism. In other words, IT'S NOT WORKING DUMMIES!

We should just let you continue to sound really stupid.

Rudy is a master politician. He's also a rich greedy liar. He relies on the fact that you guys are dumb. He tells you what he thinks you want to hear. Or he says what he thinks will win him elections.

Bush won in 2004 by simply saying "we will get hit again if the libs win".

And you bought it. How'd that work out for us?

 

[Sinatra]

Giuliani is RIGHT ON THE MARK with these comments, and states them with the kind of clarity and force missing from our current crop of elected officials and media elite. The last couple of minutes in particular are particularly strong.

Well done Mr. Mayor - and thank you...

___


YouTube - Rudy Giuliani on KSM's trial in NYC (2 of 2)

This just shows how cowardly you all are. You commit a crime in NY you get tried in NY. Why are you all so afraid of these people????

It's simply not that simple.

A captured terrorist case does not easily conform to the confines of a civilian trial.

You would do well to educate yourself on the details - therein you will find the devil...

,,,

 

[Vast LWC]

Rudy Giuliani VS.
Rudy Giuliani

Here's a clip that completely refutes the Mayor's argument.

Who is refuting it? Why Mayor Rudy Giuliani of course!

Video: Law & Order: KSM | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

Jon Stewart, as always, is a genius at pointing out massive hypocrisy.

I'm really confused here, do Republicans just assume that no-one remembers what they said 3 years ago?

 

[Sinatra]

You would do well to actually educate yourself on the legal logistics of this impending trial - the discovery navigations alone are far more complex than what you will find on a half-hour comedy show. (Pity that is where you receive your "news")

Captured vs arrested - therein lies the quagmire that will sink this fiasco. Such an irresponsible move by this White House - so stupid, so arrogant, and so dangerous.

C'mon now - you can do it. Get to some real learnin'...

 

[Vast LWC]

Hey, Sinatra, did you watch my clip, or are you just going to keep on repeating yourself?

Why did Rudy Giuliani specifically contradict himself in two exactly simliar circumstances?

Was it because of politics? LOL.

 

[Sinatra]

Hey, Sinatra, did you watch my clip, or are you just going to keep on repeating yourself?

Why did Rudy Giuliani specifically contradict himself in two exactly simliar circumstances?

Was it because of politics? LOL.

Humorous clip not entirely applicable.

Also irrelevent to the actual subject at hand.

Your dislike of Giuliani is not at issue here - but rather the very intricate task of trying to put terrorists captured by military personnel on trial in a civilian court.

As I said, successful navigation of discovery alone will produce utterly incomprehensible results that will either make the actual trial impossible, or place highly sensitive national security information at risk of being made public.

I again urge you to take more time than a half hour comedy take on this issue and educate yourself much more if you wish to engage in continued discourse of said subject. Your ignorance has become far too common - perhaps you can begin the work of removing yourself from those numbers?

Now get to work...

 

[Ravi]

You would do well to actually educate yourself on the legal logistics of this impending trial - the discovery navigations alone are far more complex than what you will find on a half-hour comedy show. (Pity that is where you receive your "news")

Captured vs arrested - therein lies the quagmire that will sink this fiasco. Such an irresponsible move by this White House - so stupid, so arrogant, and so dangerous.

C'mon now - you can do it. Get to some real learnin'...

I guess you've never head of Manuel Noreiga.

 

[Sinatra]

You would do well to actually educate yourself on the legal logistics of this impending trial - the discovery navigations alone are far more complex than what you will find on a half-hour comedy show. (Pity that is where you receive your "news")

Captured vs arrested - therein lies the quagmire that will sink this fiasco. Such an irresponsible move by this White House - so stupid, so arrogant, and so dangerous.

C'mon now - you can do it. Get to some real learnin'...

I guess you've never head of Manuel Noreiga.

That case does not set precedence - it may be tried, but again, the methods of surrender/capture and direct law enforcement involvement and cooperation of Panama were far different, as were the resulting federal charges.

You would do well to actually educate yourself on Noriega as well. It is a case with peripheral similarities, but not necessarily substantive ones...

 

[Ravi]

You would do well to actually educate yourself on the legal logistics of this impending trial - the discovery navigations alone are far more complex than what you will find on a half-hour comedy show. (Pity that is where you receive your "news")

Captured vs arrested - therein lies the quagmire that will sink this fiasco. Such an irresponsible move by this White House - so stupid, so arrogant, and so dangerous.

C'mon now - you can do it. Get to some real learnin'...

I guess you've never head of Manuel Noreiga.

That case does not set precedence - it may be tried, but again, the methods of surrender/capture and direct law enforcement involvement and cooperation of Panama were far different, as were the resulting federal charges.

You would do well to actually educate yourself on Noriega as well. It is a case with peripheral similarities, but not necessarily substantive ones...

Wrong...he was captured and held as a prisoner of war before he was tried and sentenced by the Federal courts. There really is nothing that says someone captured can't be tried in the US justice system.

 

[Liability]

Ramzi Yousef was arrested in Pakistan and tried in NYC. What's the huge difference there?

One was arrested by law enforcement officials - the other was captured by para military personnel.

BIG DIFFERENCE if you are then going to attempt a civilian trial for the latter...

They don't make laughing smilies big enough to respond to this.

That it sailed way the fuck over your head does not make it comical or wrong.

Those who are captured by the military in wartime do not get "trials" for "crimes."

Guys like you (i.e., nottoo bright) will still be unable to grasp the obvious, but that doesn't make it any less true -- and it is true.

These scumbag terrorists are not "criminals." They are foul, depraved, cowardly, shitstain unprinicpled, non-uniformed illegal soldiers. It is not a mtter for any criminal prosecution whatsoever. It is a matter of war. Period.

 

[Sinatra]

I guess you've never head of Manuel Noreiga.

That case does not set precedence - it may be tried, but again, the methods of surrender/capture and direct law enforcement involvement and cooperation of Panama were far different, as were the resulting federal charges.

You would do well to actually educate yourself on Noriega as well. It is a case with peripheral similarities, but not necessarily substantive ones...

Wrong...he was captured and held as a prisoner of war before he was tried and sentenced by the Federal courts. There really is nothing that says someone captured can't be tried in the US justice system.

Educate yourself to the details of surrender - including direct involvement of law enforcement, the applicable crimes, and the assistance by Panama itself. And go beyond the basic summary of say, Wicki. For god's sake - crack a book. There are a number of tomes that do a good job of breaking down the Noriega case - and in that self-education, you will, if you so choose, realize how that case does not easily compliment the civilian trials of these terrorists.

As stated, legally it has peripheral similarities, but not substantive ones.

Good luck in your studies...

 

[Ravi]

That case does not set precedence - it may be tried, but again, the methods of surrender/capture and direct law enforcement involvement and cooperation of Panama were far different, as were the resulting federal charges.

You would do well to actually educate yourself on Noriega as well. It is a case with peripheral similarities, but not necessarily substantive ones...

Wrong...he was captured and held as a prisoner of war before he was tried and sentenced by the Federal courts. There really is nothing that says someone captured can't be tried in the US justice system.

Educate yourself to the details of surrender - including direct involvement of law enforcement, the applicable crimes, and the assistance by Panama itself. And go beyond the basic summary of say, Wicki. For god's sake - crack a book. There are a number of tomes that do a good job of breaking down the Noriega case - and in that self-education, you will, if you so choose, realize how that case does not easily compliment the civilian trials of these terrorists.

As stated, legally it has peripheral similarities, but not substantive ones.

Good luck in your studies...

Since you've yet to be right about one thing on this forum I'm not too worried that you are now.

But feel free to show us the law that states someone captured on a battlefield can't be tried in US federal court.

 

[Sinatra]

Wrong...he was captured and held as a prisoner of war before he was tried and sentenced by the Federal courts. There really is nothing that says someone captured can't be tried in the US justice system.

Educate yourself to the details of surrender - including direct involvement of law enforcement, the applicable crimes, and the assistance by Panama itself. And go beyond the basic summary of say, Wicki. For god's sake - crack a book. There are a number of tomes that do a good job of breaking down the Noriega case - and in that self-education, you will, if you so choose, realize how that case does not easily compliment the civilian trials of these terrorists.

As stated, legally it has peripheral similarities, but not substantive ones.

Good luck in your studies...

Since you've yet to be right about one thing on this forum I'm not too worried that you are now.

But feel free to show us the law that states someone captured on a battlefield can't be tried in US federal court.

Please inform as to when I have been "wrong"...

 

[Ravi]

Educate yourself to the details of surrender - including direct involvement of law enforcement, the applicable crimes, and the assistance by Panama itself. And go beyond the basic summary of say, Wicki. For god's sake - crack a book. There are a number of tomes that do a good job of breaking down the Noriega case - and in that self-education, you will, if you so choose, realize how that case does not easily compliment the civilian trials of these terrorists.

As stated, legally it has peripheral similarities, but not substantive ones.

Good luck in your studies...

Since you've yet to be right about one thing on this forum I'm not too worried that you are now.

But feel free to show us the law that states someone captured on a battlefield can't be tried in US federal court.

Please inform as to when I have been "wrong"...

Just now...

 

[Sinatra]

Since you've yet to be right about one thing on this forum I'm not too worried that you are now.

But feel free to show us the law that states someone captured on a battlefield can't be tried in US federal court.

Please inform as to when I have been "wrong"...

Just now...

Uh-Huh.

Now that you have scurried away from your most recent post - I suggest you crack a book kid and get to learnin'...

 

[Sinatra]

CNN Poll: Americans want KSM tried in military court

Posted: November 16th, 2009 04:06 PM ET

Washington (CNN) – Two-thirds of Americans disagree with the Obama administration's decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian court rather than a military court, according to a new national poll.

...The poll indicates that 64 percent believe Mohammed should be tried in military court, with 34 percent suggesting that he face trial in civilian court. Six in 10 people questioned say Mohammed should be tried stateside, with 37 percent calling for the trial to take place at a U.S. facility in another country.

"The decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in front of a civilian court is universally unpopular - even a majority of Democrats and liberals say that he should be tried by military authorities," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Despite that, most Americans say that he will get a fair trial in the U.S."

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - CNN Poll: Americans want KSM tried in military court « - Blogs from CNN.com

 

[Ravi]

I don't care what the poll says. Where is your evidence that someone captured cannot be tried in federal court?

 

[QUENTIN]

Rudy Giuliani VS.
Rudy Giuliani

Here's a clip that completely refutes the Mayor's argument.

Who is refuting it? Why Mayor Rudy Giuliani of course!

Video: Law & Order: KSM | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

Jon Stewart, as always, is a genius at pointing out massive hypocrisy.

I'm really confused here, do Republicans just assume that no-one remembers what they said 3 years ago?

/Thread

 

[Sinatra]

I don't care what the poll says. Where is your evidence that someone captured cannot be tried in federal court?

You would do well to educate yourself on the details of this particular case - and then ask yourself this question...

Where is your evidence that someone captured cannot be tried successfully in federal court?

You clearly have much to learn - so get to it...

 

[Political Junky]

RUDY Giuliani wanted Zacarias Moussaoui to be a dead man.

"I was very disappointed. I thought the death penalty was the appropriate conclusion," said Giuliani, who testified in Moussaoui's trial about the horrors of Sept. 11.

"At the same time, I was in awe of our system," the former mayor continued. "It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial, that we are exactly what we say we are. We are a nation of law. . . . I think he's going to be a symbol of American justice."

RUDY DUBS IT BAD CALL

As Bob Dylan once sang, "These times they are a-changin"

Giuliani says anything to keep his name in the media, even though he contradicts himself a lot. He also thought Bernard Kerik would be a great NYC Police Commissioner.