KSM Trial Will Expose Liberal Idiocy!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yes, I know. I did shoot your lame argument full of holes, and that's too bad. What is sad is your deranged belief by simply inserting the word "LIE" into my post, you magically disprove it.

What disproves it is, you are lying.

So sorry, but the facts back my position.

No, the facts do not back your position, you are lying.

If the majority of the detainees were indeed captured on the battlefield, why did the Bush administration release most of them without trial or military tribunal?

If the Bush administration released them, they are no longer detainees. Therefore, they have nothing to do with this conversation or your invalid lie that you want to make into a point.

Capture on the battlefield never has required Miranda rights, and in fact, according to the Geneva Convention III, Protocol I, non-uniformed irregulars are considered legal combatants if they meet a few basic criteria, one of which is capture on the battlefield, in which case, they may not be tried for murder, and reading them Miranda rights is not only not applicable, but illegal. So you can't have it both ways.

You're right, it can't be both ways. If they are going to be tried as criminals in a US civilian court, they MUST be given Miranda rights, and if they weren't, their cases MUST be dismissed on the basis of FAILURE to properly Mirandize. The detainees have not and were not given Miranda rights, therefore, anything they confessed is inadmissible in civilian US court.

if they were captured on the battlefield of an international conflict, carrying arms openly, and fighting as a unit under a unit commander, they satisfy the criteria for legal combatants, must be treated as prisoners of war, and CANNOT be put on trial, CANNOT be tortured, harassed, humiliated, or kept in inhumane conditions. If they were captured on the battlefield, they are POWs.

You are describing the difference between an "enemy combatant" and a "POW" and the criteria is different for each. alQaeda doesn't have field commanders and uniforms or flags, they are not a conventional army.

If they are turned over to authorities as terrorists, they are alleged criminals, and until they are shown to be guilty of criminal behavior beyond a reasonable doubt, must be accorded the rights of the accused.

If they are arrested by law enforcement on US soil or in US territory, this is the case. NONE of the detainees fit this criteria.

Either way, the Bushies broke the law, either mistreating POWs or violating the rights of the accused. What's sad is that you knew none of this and thought you could fight facts by merely insering "LIE" into the text of my post.

Because you are LYING.

NONE of the detainees were handed over by the warlords for the bounty?

Not without questions being asked, nope. Didn't happen.. that's a LIE!

85% of the detainees were handed over to US authorities, NOT captured on the battlefield.

Well, since "the battlefield" is not traditional, this shouldn't be a huge surprise. Especially since we have about 120 nations in a coalition to help fight the war on terror in the region.

As for the bounties, the following link is to a report by Seton Hall Unicversity Law School professor Mark Denbeaux: law.shu.edu/publications/.../guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf

I never disputed there were bounties paid, that is typical when rounding up wanted suspects.

KSM should be tried by a tribunal under the UCMJ? Based on what criteria?

Based on the criteria that he was not apprehended on US soil, and is not a US citizen. He was captured during wartime, by military officers, not arrested by law enforcement. The proper procedure would be to either try him through military tribunal or at The Hague in International Court, but certainly NOT in American civilian court. That is the LEAST reasonable or logical place to have his trial, and there is absolutely NO basis for it.

He meets exactly none of the Geneva Convention's criteria for protection as a POW, and is therefore to be treated as a mass murderer. There is no legal justification for trying KSM as a soldier, and a very conservative SCOTUS has ruled twice that accused terrorists must be tried in civilian courts.

Yet another bold-faced LIE... The SCOTUS ruled in favor of the Constitutionality of military tribunals.

It must really suck being you.

It sucks to have to waste so much time dealing with an idiot like you, on something you obviously know little about, and attempt to cover for by LYING!

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Jesus. Dixie must've just swallowed a gallon of meth.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Jesus. Dixie must've just swallowed a gallon of meth.

Probably rectally ingested.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

US Attorney General Eric Holder has decided to try the terrorist mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in a US Federal Court. This decision, I believe, will expose the idiocy of liberals, when it comes to combating terror, or even dealing with terrorists we happen to capture. The first effect of this decision is already being realized, as army officials re-evaluate policy regarding captured detainees in the fields of battle. Now, they will have to consider the combatant will get full US jurisprudence according to the Constitution. This essentially means our military can't simply capture enemies on the fields of battle anymore, they must 'arrest' them, read their MIRANDA rights, and appoint an attorney if they can't afford one. Since you can't really exercise a proper arrest without a warrant, the military will have to compile enough evidence to have a prosecutor petition a judge for a warrant, then the army can capture an enemy combatant and process him for trial.

When Holder was asked a pertinent direct question about what happens if KSM is somehow acquitted, he said he refused to get into a hypothetical, and did not answer the question. When pressed further, he insisted KSM will not get off. I think if I am KSM's defense attorney, I want a copy of the tape where the US Attorney General admits my client will not have a fair trial and is already presumed guilty before the trial. Holder may have thought he was being clever to dodge a tough but legitimate question, however, he may have already tainted the possibility for a Federal Court to do anything other than declare a mistrial.

Here is the real problem, KSM was not "arrested" or held in custody by traditional means, so all of the usual law enforcement protocols which would normally apply to a civil arrest, simply aren't there. KSM was captured on a foreign field of battle, in a war, by our military. KSM was not read his Miranda rights, and his confession was not made in the presence of his attorney-- rather-- after being interrogated on a water board. So why Holder thinks the case is a slam dunk, I don't know. Seems like any half-decent defense attorney would have this case dismissed in about 20 mins., on those grounds alone. If not dismissed entirely, certainly the 'evidence' can't be used against him in the trial. Anyone who has watched Law & Order should know that.

I see the makings of a legal can of worms nightmare, and I don't think the liberals thought it through completely. This will undoubtedly be one of the most famous trials in American history, and World history for that matter... millions of people will be following every single minute detail. The courts will have to decide whether it should be televised... we'll have the network news crews creating special programs devoted to covering KSM's trial... each night the guest panel will pick over every tiny detail of the day... this will go on for months. All the while, KSM will use the opportunity to grandstand, make outrageous political statements, speak to his Jihadist following, spread radical Islamic propaganda... whatever the hell he pleases, because we have to allow him the same rights as an American citizen would have in a courtroom.

This is probably the most stupid thing I have ever seen any administration do in my lifetime. I'm 50 years old, so that is a long time... I've seen administrations do a lot of stupid shit. There is no 'upside' to this, as far as I can see. That is what puzzles me the most about why the administration chose this road. It seems they are just unable to see what a disaster this is going to end up being, and the consequences are going to fall squarely on them in the end.

Liberals used to be really good at trying to get me to "see things from the radical islamic perspective" ...I was told how I just didn't understand this was about their religious culture and societal struggle... jihad means struggle... Well... Try to see this from the Islamic perspective... KSM is a hero to them, he is a courageous religious leader who led the charge against the Great Satan... What are they going to think/say/do, when we execute him? Are we really ready for the ramifications of that, when he is put to death?

I see the makings of a legal can of worms nightmare, and I don't think the liberals thought it through completely...This is probably the most stupid thing I have ever seen any administration do in my lifetime.... It seems they are just unable to see what a disaster this is going to end up being, and the consequences are going to fall squarely on them in the end.
~Dixie - November 2009

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014685359_gitmo05.html

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, ending more than a year of indecision with a major policy reversal, will prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other people accused of plotting the Sept. 11 attacks before a military commission and not a civilian court, as once planned.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced Monday that he has cleared military prosecutors at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to file war-crimes charges against the five detainees in the Sept. 11 case.
Holder had decided in November 2009 to move the case to a federal civilian courtroom in New York, but the White House abandoned that plan amid a political backlash.


Ha ha ha... I told ya so! :lmao:

 

[Bonestorm]

I see the makings of a legal can of worms nightmare, and I don't think the liberals thought it through completely...This is probably the most stupid thing I have ever seen any administration do in my lifetime.... It seems they are just unable to see what a disaster this is going to end up being, and the consequences are going to fall squarely on them in the end.
~Dixie - November 2009

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014685359_gitmo05.html

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, ending more than a year of indecision with a major policy reversal, will prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other people accused of plotting the Sept. 11 attacks before a military commission and not a civilian court, as once planned.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced Monday that he has cleared military prosecutors at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to file war-crimes charges against the five detainees in the Sept. 11 case.
Holder had decided in November 2009 to move the case to a federal civilian courtroom in New York, but the White House abandoned that plan amid a political backlash.


Ha ha ha... I told ya so! :lmao:

You told who what? Congress prohibited anyone from GITMO being tried in the civilian courts in the United States. The decision to try KSM in the military commission system has nothing to do with your pants-shitting parade of horribles and everything to do with pants-shitting members of Congress bending over to idiots like you.

 

[DamnYankee]

I see the makings of a legal can of worms nightmare, and I don't think the liberals thought it through completely...This is probably the most stupid thing I have ever seen any administration do in my lifetime.... It seems they are just unable to see what a disaster this is going to end up being, and the consequences are going to fall squarely on them in the end.
~Dixie - November 2009

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014685359_gitmo05.html

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, ending more than a year of indecision with a major policy reversal, will prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other people accused of plotting the Sept. 11 attacks before a military commission and not a civilian court, as once planned.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced Monday that he has cleared military prosecutors at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to file war-crimes charges against the five detainees in the Sept. 11 case.
Holder had decided in November 2009 to move the case to a federal civilian courtroom in New York, but the White House abandoned that plan amid a political backlash.


Ha ha ha... I told ya so! :lmao:

Nice call!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You told who what? Congress prohibited anyone from GITMO being tried in the civilian courts in the United States. The decision to try KSM in the military commission system has nothing to do with your pants-shitting parade of horribles and everything to do with pants-shitting members of Congress bending over to idiots like you.

I told you pinheads this would be a disaster and a debacle, and it has been. I said it would expose liberal idiocy, and it certainly has done that. I really did expect them to attempt this, and I think the one case they did try in civilian court, left them a little nervous about any more, since the scumbucket almost got off completely. But I think what did them in, was the logistical nightmare of trying to actually do what they wanted to do... it wasn't as easy as it sounded, and I called that as well.


It's really nice to relegate you to sputtering and spewing vitriolic nonsense about involuntary bowel movements and such... I wonder what made you think that up? Maybe because this whole episode was so embarrassing, it made you shit your own pants, so that was fresh on your mind?

 

[Bonestorm]

I told you pinheads this would be a disaster and a debacle, and it has been. I said it would expose liberal idiocy, and it certainly has done that. I really did expect them to attempt this, and I think the one case they did try in civilian court, left them a little nervous about any more, since the scumbucket almost got off completely. But I think what did them in, was the logistical nightmare of trying to actually do what they wanted to do... it wasn't as easy as it sounded, and I called that as well.

What "did them in" was Congress preventing them from trying anyone from GITMO in civilian court. If Congress didn't succumb to pants-shitters like you and then the DOJ decided not to pursue a civilian trial of KSM you'd have a point, but that's not what happened.

It's really nice to relegate you to sputtering and spewing vitriolic nonsense about involuntary bowel movements and such... I wonder what made you think that up? Maybe because this whole episode was so embarrassing, it made you shit your own pants, so that was fresh on your mind?

That's very clever, Pee Wee.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What "did them in" was Congress preventing them from trying anyone from GITMO in civilian court. If Congress didn't succumb to pants-shitters like you and then the DOJ decided not to pursue a civilian trial of KSM you'd have a point, but that's not what happened.

The decision to return the detainees to a military commission is a reversal from Holder, who announced in November 2009 that he would move the trials to a civilian court in the United States. Supporters said it sent the right message to the rest of the world that U.S. courts were the fairest and best venue for trials.
At the time, President Obama said it was Holder's decision. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Monday's decision again remained with Holder.
"The president's primary concern here is that the perpetrators ... of that terrible attack on the American people be brought to justice as swiftly as possible and as fairly as possible," Carney said before Holder's remarks.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...mmad-military-commission-trial/#ixzz1IihWC32l
​

 

[Damocles]

Wow, this thread just raised from the dead.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What "did them in" was Congress preventing them from trying anyone from GITMO in civilian court.

Well I believe this would fall under the "logistics" of doing it, as I correctly stated, it wasn't as easy as it sounded.

This might not be such a bad defeat for Obama, if it were the only one... but it sure seems like he has had to 'walk back' a LOT of the talk he did on the campaign trail. I mean, GITMO isn't supposed to even be open now... much less holding military tribunals! All the Bush policies on Rendition... still in place... still being used routinely... the Patriot Act, extended and broadened under Obama... and just the other day, he gave a wonderful speech about American Exceptionalism, and how we have a duty to spread Democracy across the Arab world... who woulda thunk it?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Wow, this thread just raised from the dead.

Yep, I bumped it yesterday... I just wanted to remind pinheads that my predictions aren't always wrong... it might take a couple of years, but eventually I am vindicated.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Yep, I bumped it yesterday... I just wanted to remind pinheads that my predictions aren't always wrong... it might take a couple of years, but eventually I am vindicated.

Perhaps.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Probably rectally ingested.

That's the way to do it. Ever laced your latex with meth for a methhead chick?

 

[Bonestorm]

Well I believe this would fall under the "logistics" of doing it, as I correctly stated, it wasn't as easy as it sounded.

You belief is silly. It isn't a matter of logistics being too complicated, it's a matter of Congress making it impossible to do. Hell you posted the entirety of Holder's statement but apparently you didn't read it.

This might not be such a bad defeat for Obama, if it were the only one... but it sure seems like he has had to 'walk back' a LOT of the talk he did on the campaign trail. I mean, GITMO isn't supposed to even be open now... much less holding military tribunals!

Again, thanks to the idiots in Congress.

All the Bush policies on Rendition... still in place... still being used routinely...

As I'm sure you're well aware, renditions were in place well before Bush II. That they exist after Bush shouldn't be surprising. What has been shut down is the Bush policy on extraordinary rendition, which is the controversial bit.

the Patriot Act, extended and broadened under Obama...

Well, Obama voted for it to be extended when he was in the Senate so why is this surprising?

and just the other day, he gave a wonderful speech about American Exceptionalism,

A concept dating back at least to Tocqueville.

and how we have a duty to spread Democracy across the Arab world...

The spread of democracy has been one of the general guiding principles of American foreign policy since the end of WWII so I'm not sure why this is surprising either.

who woulda thunk it?

Pretty much anyone paying a little bit of attention.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You belief is silly. It isn't a matter of logistics being too complicated, it's a matter of Congress making it impossible to do. Hell you posted the entirety of Holder's statement but apparently you didn't read it.

Again, that falls under "logistics" of getting 'er done! You see, this is a representative republic, and not a kingship. Before you shoot your mouth off about what you're going to do, you better make sure you're going to have the approval of Congress as well, because that's part of our system of government. I read Holder's statement, but I also read the official White House statement which said it was totally Holder's call, they didn't blame the mean old Congress. So who is lying, Holder or Obama?

Again, thanks to the idiots in Congress.

Again.... Representative republic.... not a dictatorship!

As I'm sure you're well aware, renditions were in place well before Bush II. That they exist after Bush shouldn't be surprising. What has been shut down is the Bush policy on extraordinary rendition, which is the controversial bit.

LMFAO... Oh, okay.... it was only the extraordinary part that liberal pinheads were upset with Bush about? Just regular old rendition is fine! Please describe for us in your own words, what distinguishes "extraordinary" rendition from "regular" rendition? How can we tell the difference in the two? Is the blindfold tighter? Do they secretly fly them to Peoria instead of Pakistan? Maybe they serve peanuts on the flight and that keeps it from being "extraordinary?"

Well, Obama voted for it to be extended when he was in the Senate so why is this surprising?

I think he kind of lead people to believe he was going to change some of Bush's policies, not expand and extend them... but that's just my take on it.... seemed like his base was pretty pissed off at Bush, which is why they voted for Obama. Again, I guess I could be wrong there.

A concept dating back at least to Tocqueville.

Yes, and one that liberals often dismiss or reject. Even Obama said this on the campaign trail.. "America is exceptional like Greeks believe they are exceptional...." I shouldn't have to remind you of this, it's the same argument liberals have made here for years. But suddenly, when America is needed to do the heavy lifting in Libya, we have to do it because no one else can, we are an exceptional nation!

The spread of democracy has been one of the general guiding principles of American foreign policy since the end of WWII so I'm not sure why this is surprising either.

Well because we've heard about a decade of tripe from the liberal left, about how this is impossible and it's crazy for us to even think we could do that..... oh, I get it now.... but we're not OBAMA! Right? Let's see.... if Bush spreads democracy in the middle east, he is a "cowboy" and we're forcing democracy on people at the point of our bayonets, making them HATE us more.... but if Obama does it? Completely different story! Then it's just peachy-keen and the people LOVE us for it!

Pretty much anyone paying a little bit of attention.

Well that certainly takes YOU out of the mix, doesn't it?

 

[Bonestorm]

Again, that falls under "logistics" of getting 'er done! You see, this is a representative republic, and not a kingship. Before you shoot your mouth off about what you're going to do, you better make sure you're going to have the approval of Congress as well, because that's part of our system of government. I read Holder's statement, but I also read the official White House statement which said it was totally Holder's call, they didn't blame the mean old Congress. So who is lying, Holder or Obama?

You said that trying KSM in civilian court would be problematic for a lot of reasons, but not having any money to transport him to the United States for trial wasn't one of them. By the way, link the "official White House statement." I haven't seen that.

Again.... Representative republic.... not a dictatorship!

OK, so what?

LMFAO... Oh, okay.... it was only the extraordinary part that liberal pinheads were upset with Bush about? Just regular old rendition is fine! Please describe for us in your own words, what distinguishes "extraordinary" rendition from "regular" rendition? How can we tell the difference in the two?

The major distinguishing feature between "extraordinary rendition" and rendition is that with "extraordinary rendition" the subjects are either taken to CIA black sites or foreign countries (and before the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, GITMO) are subject to torture and are not afforded any legal process whatsoever. With rendition, the subjects are brought to the United States and are subject to legal process and the all the constitutional trappings attendant thereto.

I think he kind of lead people to believe he was going to change some of Bush's policies, not expand and extend them... but that's just my take on it.... seemed like his base was pretty pissed off at Bush, which is why they voted for Obama. Again, I guess I could be wrong there.

OK.

Yes, and one that liberals often dismiss or reject. Even Obama said this on the campaign trail.. "America is exceptional like Greeks believe they are exceptional...." I shouldn't have to remind you of this, it's the same argument liberals have made here for years. But suddenly, when America is needed to do the heavy lifting in Libya, we have to do it because no one else can, we are an exceptional nation!

Whatever.

Well because we've heard about a decade of tripe from the liberal left, about how this is impossible and it's crazy for us to even think we could do that..... oh, I get it now.... but we're not OBAMA! Right? Let's see.... if Bush spreads democracy in the middle east, he is a "cowboy" and we're forcing democracy on people at the point of our bayonets, making them HATE us more.... but if Obama does it? Completely different story! Then it's just peachy-keen and the people LOVE us for it!

It's the means employed, the manner in which those means are employed, and the justification for it that were the objectionable bits. If Bush just said that he supported democracy in the middle east and supported opposition groups his policy would have been indistinguishable from Clinton's, but that's not what he did or how he went about it.

Well that certainly takes YOU out of the mix, doesn't it?

Fargle Bargle.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You said that trying KSM in civilian court would be problematic for a lot of reasons, but not having any money to transport him to the United States for trial wasn't one of them. By the way, link the "official White House statement." I haven't seen that.

Really? I posted the response above, from the White House Press Secretary, who makes official statements to the press on behalf of the White House. He says it was Holder's call. I said the logistics would be a nightmare, and having your Congress reject your idea entirely, across both sides of the aisle, would constitute a logistical nightmare, which ultimately made it impossible.

OK, so what?

Wow, what a well thought out and clever response, I don't know if I can possibly defend my position against that!
The point is, Congress is part of the equation. It goes with the territory, when you are president, you have to work with Congress. Clinton had to do it, Reagan had to do it, Bush had to do it... It's our system of government. Before you stand up there and give the American people your word that you are GOING to do this or that, you better make sure Congress is going to support it, otherwise you are going to be made into a liar and a fool in real short order, as Obama has discovered.

The major distinguishing feature between "extraordinary rendition" and rendition is that with "extraordinary rendition" the subjects are either taken to CIA black sites or foreign countries (and before the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, GITMO) are subject to torture and are not afforded any legal process whatsoever. With rendition, the subjects are brought to the United States and are subject to legal process and the all the constitutional trappings attendant thereto.

What? Do you even comprehend in you limp noodle, what we're talking about when we say "rendition?" You seem to think it is like being taken into custody and read your rights... just like a typical arrest. Rendition doesn't mean Arrest, Nigey. Sorry! Rendition is the intelligence practice of taking a combatant to an undisclosed location, while leading him to think he is being turned over to foreign authorities, who are much more brutal interrogators than the US. You're not going to talk if you are taken to Gloria Alred's office and read your Miranda rights -- You might talk if you think some angry Turkish dude is about to ruin your day. Rendition, whether under Bush or Clinton, or Obama, doesn't involve being tortured. It involves the threat of being tortured, and it involves selling the prisoner on the idea the threat is serious and real.

But tell me Nigel, when do they get to speak with their attorney in your definition of rendition?

It's the means employed, the manner in which those means are employed, and the justification for it that were the objectionable bits. If Bush just said that he supported democracy in the middle east and supported opposition groups his policy would have been indistinguishable from Clinton's, but that's not what he did or how he went about it.

Ahh, okay.... so Bush sending in troops to systematically go door to door and ferret out the bad guys while helping the good guys train for security and establish a functioning democratic government...that's objectionable.... while lobbing indiscriminate cruise missiles into towns and villages, killing dozens of innocents, that's fine? That's the way democracy should be spread?

 

[Bonestorm]

Really? I posted the response above, from the White House Press Secretary, who makes official statements to the press on behalf of the White House. He says it was Holder's call. I said the logistics would be a nightmare, and having your Congress reject your idea entirely, across both sides of the aisle, would constitute a logistical nightmare, which ultimately made it impossible.

Really? This is all I saw: "The president's primary concern here is that the perpetrators ... of that terrible attack on the American people be brought to justice as swiftly as possible and as fairly as possible." I don't see anything about it being Holder's call. And, just an FYI, the White House does release official statements on various issues. The remarks of the press secretary are different from the official statements.

Wow, what a well thought out and clever response, I don't know if I can possibly defend my position against that!
The point is, Congress is part of the equation. It goes with the territory, when you are president, you have to work with Congress. Clinton had to do it, Reagan had to do it, Bush had to do it... It's our system of government. Before you stand up there and give the American people your word that you are GOING to do this or that, you better make sure Congress is going to support it, otherwise you are going to be made into a liar and a fool in real short order, as Obama has discovered.

I actually agree with you here and made the same point about Obama's promise to have healthcare negotiations in a public setting.

What? Do you even comprehend in you limp noodle, what we're talking about when we say "rendition?" You seem to think it is like being taken into custody and read your rights... just like a typical arrest. Rendition doesn't mean Arrest, Nigey. Sorry! Rendition is the intelligence practice of taking a combatant to an undisclosed location, while leading him to think he is being turned over to foreign authorities, who are much more brutal interrogators than the US. You're not going to talk if you are taken to Gloria Alred's office and read your Miranda rights -- You might talk if you think some angry Turkish dude is about to ruin your day. Rendition, whether under Bush or Clinton, or Obama, doesn't involve being tortured. It involves the threat of being tortured, and it involves selling the prisoner on the idea the threat is serious and real.

But tell me Nigel, when do they get to speak with their attorney in your definition of rendition?

Extraordinary rendition and rendition are not the same thing. It's your inability to grasp this simple concept that has you confused. Just do a google search for "Fawaz Younis" and you'll see what I mean. He was subject to rendition in an operation authorized by President Regan and brought to the United States to stand trial for his role in a terrorist hijacking.

Ahh, okay.... so Bush sending in troops to systematically go door to door and ferret out the bad guys while helping the good guys train for security and establish a functioning democratic government...that's objectionable.... while lobbing indiscriminate cruise missiles into towns and villages, killing dozens of innocents, that's fine? That's the way democracy should be spread?

Hilarious.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Really? This is all I saw: "The president's primary concern here is that the perpetrators ... of that terrible attack on the American people be brought to justice as swiftly as possible and as fairly as possible." I don't see anything about it being Holder's call. And, just an FYI, the White House does release official statements on various issues. The remarks of the press secretary are different from the official statements.

Un-fucking-believable! You are actually going to use the quote which explains why Holder made the decision to hold the tribunals at Gitmo instead of in civilian court, to show where they didn't say it was Holder's decision? What the fuck are you smoking today? And yes, I am aware the White House sometimes issues an official statement in writing, then they give it to the Press Secretary, who distributes it to the media. In this case, no... the White House did not release a written statement that it was Holder's decision. The Press Secretary stated it at a Press Conference, and then explained the reason for the decision, which you quoted. Got it, pinhead?

I actually agree with you here and made the same point about Obama's promise to have healthcare negotiations in a public setting.

It's good to have you on record agreeing with me, that Obama is a liar and a fool. Thanks, and welcome aboard!

Extraordinary rendition and rendition are not the same thing. It's your inability to grasp this simple concept that has you confused. Just do a google search for "Fawaz Younis" and you'll see what I mean. He was subject to rendition in an operation authorized by President Regan and brought to the United States to stand trial for his role in a terrorist hijacking.

Oh I know... I already figured it out... If you are a liberal democrat president, you can use rendition all you like, and there is nothing extraordinary about it, but if you are a republican president, any rendition is a war crime. Got it!

Hilarious.

Yes, you are!