Rudy Blasts Obama's Idiotic Move

[NYcarbineer]

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...

So do you have examples from history where this was a problem?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

If Giuliani was still a prosecutor in NY he'd be trampling old ladies in a mad dash to get his hands on one of these cases.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Well if it's politically unpopular that at least clears the Justice Dept. of any insinuation that this is being done for political gain.

btw, most Americans support a public option in healthcare, while we on the subject of your devotion to listening to 'the people'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

So the 1993 bombing of the WTC wasn't an act of war, Lard?

lolol

 

[Sinatra]

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...

So do you have examples from history where this was a problem?

These cases are unchartered waters - they are attempting to set new precedence and as such, a very high probability for failure - needlessly so.

Add yourself to the ongoing study group in self-educating on this particular terrorist civilian trial case.

Now get to work...

 

[NYcarbineer]

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...

So do you have examples from history where this was a problem?

These cases are unchartered waters - they are attempting to set new precedence and as such, a very high probability for failure - needlessly so.

Add yourself to the ongoing study group in self-educating on this particular terrorist civilian trial case.

Now get to work...

In other words you have no evidence of what I highlighted.

 

[Sinatra]

So do you have examples from history where this was a problem?

These cases are unchartered waters - they are attempting to set new precedence and as such, a very high probability for failure - needlessly so.

Add yourself to the ongoing study group in self-educating on this particular terrorist civilian trial case.

Now get to work...

In other words you have no evidence of what I highlighted.

I completely agree with that highlighted sentence.

Now get to work...

 

[Vast LWC]

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...

Humorous or not, the clip clearly shows Rudy Giuliani specifically contradicting his opinion on whether Terrorists should be tried in New York in a civilian court or not.

The first Giuliani is from 2006, When Bush was President.

The Second Giuliani is from the clip present is this very thread.

The reason it's funny is BECAUSE IT SHOWS RUDY GIULIANI TO BE A COMPLETE HYPOCRITE ON THIS SUBJECT.

In essence, Rudy Giuliani IS the comedy present in my clip, as interpreted through Mr Stewart.

And really, you should try to diversify your vocabulary. I believe you've used the term "educate yourself" at least a dozen times in this thread. Which is especially amusing as it usually precedes someone corrrecting you.

LOL.

 

[Vast LWC]

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

Most Americans, including myself, would like to see all of them torn apart by wild dogs, with no trial at all.

That doesn't mean that doing so is the RIGHT thing to do, or the LEGAL thing to do.

The LAW exists so that mob rule does not win the day.

 

[Maple]

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

Most Americans, including myself, would like to see all of them torn apart by wild dogs, with no trial at all.

That doesn't mean that doing so is the RIGHT thing to do, or the LEGAL thing to do.

The LAW exists so that mob rule does not win the day.

Then do a military tribunal as has always been done with acts of war and enemy combatants.

This is just going to turn into a circus, a very expensive one, but then go ahead because this will be a windfall for the 2012 elections and the candidate who runs against Obama.

In the short 10 months of Obama's career as Prez he has given the opposition enough ammo to sink the entire U.S fleet. Keep it up and keep steppin in it Mr. Prez. Torpedo time is coming on fast.

 

[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...

,,,

 

[Ravi]

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...

,,,

Still waiting for your evidence.

 

[Vast LWC]

Then do a military tribunal as has always been done with acts of war and enemy combatants.

This is just going to turn into a circus, a very expensive one, but then go ahead because this will be a windfall for the 2012 elections and the candidate who runs against Obama.

In the short 10 months of Obama's career as Prez he has given the opposition enough ammo to sink the entire U.S fleet. Keep it up and keep steppin in it Mr. Prez. Torpedo time is coming on fast.

As has been stated previously, an "Act of War" is defined as an act perpetrated by one COUNTRY against another.

"Enemy Combatants" are defined as prisoners taken in a war with another country.

Therefore, neither of those circumstances applies to these bastards.

They are common criminals, and need to be tried as such.

You people complain about the president doing things that are "unconsitutional" when they aren't, and then complain when he tries to act according to the laws of the land, even under harsh criticism.

Admit it, you don't give a shit what the subject is, or even what stance you take on it, as long as you can criticize the President. It's amazing.

 

[bodecea]

Then do a military tribunal as has always been done with acts of war and enemy combatants.

This is just going to turn into a circus, a very expensive one, but then go ahead because this will be a windfall for the 2012 elections and the candidate who runs against Obama.

In the short 10 months of Obama's career as Prez he has given the opposition enough ammo to sink the entire U.S fleet. Keep it up and keep steppin in it Mr. Prez. Torpedo time is coming on fast.

As has been stated previously, an "Act of War" is defined as an act perpetrated by one COUNTRY against another.

"Enemy Combatants" are defined as prisoners taken in a war with another country.

Therefore, neither of those circumstances applies to these bastards.

They are common criminals, and need to be tried as such.

You people complain about the president doing things that are "unconsitutional" when they aren't, and then complain when he tries to act according to the laws of the land, even under harsh criticism.

Admit it, you don't give a shit what the subject is, or even what stance you take on it, as long as you can criticize the President. It's amazing.

Pretty obvious by now.

 

[Meister]

Then do a military tribunal as has always been done with acts of war and enemy combatants.

This is just going to turn into a circus, a very expensive one, but then go ahead because this will be a windfall for the 2012 elections and the candidate who runs against Obama.

In the short 10 months of Obama's career as Prez he has given the opposition enough ammo to sink the entire U.S fleet. Keep it up and keep steppin in it Mr. Prez. Torpedo time is coming on fast.

As has been stated previously, an "Act of War" is defined as an act perpetrated by one COUNTRY against another.

"Enemy Combatants" are defined as prisoners taken in a war with another country.

Therefore, neither of those circumstances applies to these bastards.

They are common criminals, and need to be tried as such.

You people complain about the president doing things that are "unconsitutional" when they aren't, and then complain when he tries to act according to the laws of the land, even under harsh criticism.

Admit it, you don't give a shit what the subject is, or even what stance you take on it, as long as you can criticize the President. It's amazing.

Pretty obvious by now.

Of course, the libs were so much better in their treatment of Bush43.

 

[bodecea]

As has been stated previously, an "Act of War" is defined as an act perpetrated by one COUNTRY against another.

"Enemy Combatants" are defined as prisoners taken in a war with another country.

Therefore, neither of those circumstances applies to these bastards.

They are common criminals, and need to be tried as such.

You people complain about the president doing things that are "unconsitutional" when they aren't, and then complain when he tries to act according to the laws of the land, even under harsh criticism.

Admit it, you don't give a shit what the subject is, or even what stance you take on it, as long as you can criticize the President. It's amazing.

Pretty obvious by now.

Of course, the libs were so much better in their treatment of Bush43.

Not perfect...but I don't recall the blasting of every little thing about Bush such as his religion, his wife (mercilessly), his nationality, his teleprompter, his mother, his choice of mustard, his fist bump, and so on and so forth.

 

[Meister]

Pretty obvious by now.

Of course, the libs were so much better in their treatment of Bush43.

Not perfect...but I don't recall the blasting of every little thing about Bush such as his religion, his wife (mercilessly), his nationality, his teleprompter, his mother, his choice of mustard, his fist bump, and so on and so forth.

Bush would have never had Wright as a pastor, Bo. They did talk of his wife hitting the bottle, no not his nationality, I'm sure he served up the proper documents on that. I know Obama could also, Bo, but he just chooses not to, so he puts himself into that situation. I doubt Bush even knew what a teleprompter was....He didn't make good speeches very often....There was so much more that the libs hammered away on with Bush43. He would say good morning, and the libs would throw a fit and ask what's so good about it. He would say it's green and the libs would call him crazy. Each president brings their little niche into the bitch session. But it was every bit as bad for Bush as it is for Obama. Bush didn't whine and cry about it as the obama administration does. I think that's the difference in what your seeing.

 

[Vast LWC]

Of course, the libs were so much better in their treatment of Bush43.

Yeah, here's the thing about Bush...

Aside from people being upset over the whole losing the election thing, which really wasn't Bush's fault exactly, just a bad set of circumstances, people weren't all that hard on Bush, aside from a few criticisms here and there, until he really started to fuck things up.

Which was a good 2-3 years into his first term.

In fact, Bush had near universal support and approval immediately following 9/11.

You see, there was a REASON why people hated on W. He fucked up, big time, and people turned on him for it.

In Obama's case, however, you all have been screaming about how he's a "Socialist, Nazi, Fascist" since Day 1.

Hell, he still really hasn't done anything wrong yet. The situation our economy is in still hasn't receovered from the Bush years. The two wars we're in were started by Bush.

But if people were to listen to your insane rhetoric, he's pretty much the Anti-Christ.

You pick on the tiniest minutae of everything the man does and make a big deal out of it, whining and criticizing to no end about it.

That's why South Park, SNL, and all the other comedy outlets are making fun of you now. You're acting like a bunch of certifiable psychotics.

 

[Vast LWC]

Bush would have never had Wright as a pastor, Bo.

You're right, instead, he was good buddies with Pat Robertson, who at various points preached the assassination of foreign leaders and the nuclear bombing of the US State Department.

They did talk of his wife hitting the bottle, no not his nationality, I'm sure he served up the proper documents on that. I know Obama could also, Bo, but he just chooses not to, so he puts himself into that situation.

He has provided the proper documentation, cetain psychotic people have decided they don't want to believe it. And no, Bush was never asked to show his "original, handwirtten birth certificate".

I doubt Bush even knew what a teleprompter was....He didn't make good speeches very often....There was so much more that the libs hammered away on with Bush43. He would say good morning, and the libs would throw a fit and ask what's so good about it.

After he fucked up the country beyond belief with his incomptence, yes, not before.

He would say it's green and the libs would call him crazy. Each president brings their little niche into the bitch session. But it was every bit as bad for Bush as it is for Obama. Bush didn't whine and cry about it as the obama administration does.

Yes, he did. He demonized everyone who criticized them in the least. He wouldn't go on interviews on MSNBC long before Obama decided to boycott Fox.

I think that's the difference in what your seeing.

The difference is that OBAMA HASN"T DONE ANYTHING WRONG YET, and the FoxNews crowd is acting like a bunch of conspiracy theorists on steroids.

 

[Meister]

Of course, the libs were so much better in their treatment of Bush43.

Yeah, here's the thing about Bush...

Aside from people being upset over the whole losing the election thing, which really wasn't Bush's fault exactly, just a bad set of circumstances, people weren't all that hard on Bush, aside from a few criticisms here and there, until he really started to fuck things up.

Which was a good 2-3 years into his first term.

In fact, Bush had near universal support and approval immediately following 9/11.

You see, there was a REASON why people hated on W. He fucked up, big time, and people turned on him for it.

In Obama's case, however, you all have been screaming about how he's a "Socialist, Nazi, Fascist" since Day 1.

Hell, he still really hasn't done anything wrong yet. The situation our economy is in still hasn't receovered from the Bush years. The two wars we're in were started by Bush.

But if people were to listen to your insane rhetoric, he's pretty much the Anti-Christ.

You pick on the tiniest minutae of everything the man does and make a big deal out of it, whining and criticizing to no end about it.

That's why South Park, SNL, and all the other comedy outlets are making fun of you now. You're acting like a bunch of certifiable psychotics.

Your a fuckin ditz....they were after him from the time that he was elected....remember the "stolen election"? Get a reality check.
The only problem I have with obama is his policies, period.I didn't have a problem with him bowing, I'm not a birther.
I do have a problem with the msm, and their journalism abilities, and I have problems with the partisan hacks like yourself, Vast......but with Obama it's just his policies.
So take your drivel, and pander it elsewhere, OK?