PDA

View Full Version : Why are Republicans such cowards?


noonereal
11-18-2009, 06:21 AM
Every time I turn around I see a republican in fear.

Now the latest, it is to dangerous to place terrorists on trial in NYC.

Honest, what is up with that?

When did the Cheney doctrine "Keep them scared and they will follow" become the theme song of the right?

I find it so surreal and absurd that the same group that loves to talk about how tough they are when draped in guns are scared of their own shadow.

What is up with that?

merrylander
11-18-2009, 07:01 AM
They are not in the least scared, but they are just trotting out their usual FUD scenario in hopes of scaring the hoi poloi.

To say that 9/11 constituted war crimes bestows the staus of nationhood on al-queda whereas they are simply a gang of criminal thugs. It is all the current "newspeak"; war on drugs, war on crime, war on terror, pure and unmitigated bull crap.

Frex, if there really was a war on drugs they know exactly where the drug lords live, give me a couple of Predators and Hellfire missiles and I'll show you war. If those creeps can murder nine year old babies they deserve no quarter nor do their families, they will only grow up to be as evil as the parents.

spasmo55
11-18-2009, 07:49 AM
Allow me to give you a different perspective. Trying them in a civilian criminal court, whether in NY or any other state in the country is going to cause this to go on and on and on.

Yes, I am well aware that they have been held forever and a day already, but this is going to be a dog & pony show the likes of the OJ trial.

It will afford them the rights equal to those of a citizen, though they are not and IMHO they nor anyone else who is not a citizen should enjoy those rights, even in our courts.

Lets us just look at the whole venue issue, where oh where will we be able to find a jury pool that is not bias or has no prior knowledge of the event???

Then we will have to watch the games about evidence, and what will be argued about national security.

Then months of trial, much to the love of the media, and on to the endless appeal processes. With any luck this show may be over before your children reach your current age.

In this case a military trial would help control a lot of the bullshit we are going to be subjected to.

Were I to have my way, they would be tried Judge Roy Bean style, executed by beheading if guilty and the parts buried seperate from each other, but then I'm just another arrogant American Ass.

piece-itpete
11-18-2009, 08:53 AM
Even FDR tried German spies in a tribunal and shot them.

On American soil to boot. We didn't used to monkey around.

Pete

noonereal
11-18-2009, 09:23 AM
Allow me to give you a different perspective. Trying them in a civilian criminal court, whether in NY or any other state in the country is going to cause this to go on and on and on.
.

This is not the reason sited for the hostile GOP response.

merrylander
11-18-2009, 10:21 AM
As if it has not gone on and on already? The Germas during WW II were tried in a military court because we were at war with a nation, - Germany. Those followers of bin Laden are not a nation, merely a gang of thugs.

Sandy G
11-18-2009, 10:26 AM
Dollar to a donut says they'll be aquitted & turned loose...Kalid Shake Yerbooty will end up w/a souvenir shop across from ground zero...And in 2020 or so, when the next generation flies an Airbus 380 into the still-uncompleted Freedom Tower 'n' brings it down, it'll STILL be America's fault, for being mean 'n' nasty to the pure, serene, peaceful, tranquil, loving religion of Islam...

Fast_Eddie
11-18-2009, 10:47 AM
I haven't read up on this a lot, but wasn't the military tribunal shot down by the military? I mean, if thats right, we can talk about what we'd like to see, but as far as an "issue" it's kind of a moot point. Rotting in jail in NYC waiting for apeals and such or rotting in Gitmo- who cares? Long as they're rotting in jail.

Fast_Eddie
11-18-2009, 10:59 AM
Dollar to a donut says they'll be aquitted & turned loose...Kalid Shake Yerbooty will end up w/a souvenir shop across from ground zero...And in 2020 or so, when the next generation flies an Airbus 380 into the still-uncompleted Freedom Tower 'n' brings it down, it'll STILL be America's fault, for being mean 'n' nasty to the pure, serene, peaceful, tranquil, loving religion of Islam...

I always see a paradox when I see these comments. I don't mean to speak for you Sandy, so tell me if you disagree. Just using this as an example, well, 'cause it's right here in front of me.

We have a group of guys who hijack some planes and crash them into buildings. Who's responsible? Afghanistan for creating an environment that harbors terrorists. Iraq for, um, being in the same part of the world or something. All of Islam for believing in a religion that these people use as an excuse for their actions. Okay, not my beliefs, but some folks feel this way. Here's where I get confused.

Often, these same people (again, Sandy, you may not be one of them) are keen on talking a lot about "personal responsibility". A black kid grows up with a single mom in the projects. Mom's on drugs and kid basically raises himself. Doesn't eat regularly and doesn't go to school because he's a kid and would rather not and there's no family structure to make him. Mom kicks the kid out when he's 17 'cause she doesn't have any money and would rather spend what she does have on drugs.

So kid sells drugs, makes money and kills people. Who's to blame? The Mom who didn't do her job as a parent? The community that allowed the kid to fall through the cracks and not have a shot at a decent life? The school that didn't send the truant officer to his house and get his but in class? The Government that makes drugs illegal but doesn't enforce the laws sufficiently to deter drug sales? The Christian Faith that so many of his fellow country men hold that allows this to go on and does nothing to stop it?

No, the kid is. He has to take personal responsibility for his actions.

A lot of cognitive dissonance going on.

Why is Islam to blame? Didn't these men make their own decision?

Boreas
11-18-2009, 11:07 AM
Allow me to give you a different perspective. Trying them in a civilian criminal court, whether in NY or any other state in the country is going to cause this to go on and on and on.

It'll take as long as it needs to. Justice has to be done, consistent with our laws and the constitution. We need to live in accordance with our principles, not to "show the world" but, frankly, to show people who think as you do that there is another and better way.

Yes, I am well aware that they have been held forever and a day already, but this is going to be a dog & pony show the likes of the OJ trial.

There are ways to prevent that. We could create a press pool so that the freedom of the press could be preserved but TMZ, ET, etc. wouldn't be there to turn things into a circus

It will afford them the rights equal to those of a citizen, though they are not and IMHO they nor anyone else who is not a citizen should enjoy those rights, even in our courts.

The constitution disagrees. Everyone, no matter what their citizenship, is entitled to due process in our courts.

Lets us just look at the whole venue issue, where oh where will we be able to find a jury pool that is not bias or has no prior knowledge of the event???

That could be a problem but you seem to be suggesting that it's okay to toss out the constitution if adhering to is proves a little too hard or complicated.

The constitution requires that a trial be conducted in the place where the crime occurred. You can request a change of venue but I don't think Guantanamo would qualify.

Then we will have to watch the games about evidence, and what will be argued about national security.

You mean how we obtained confessions and things like that? We've tried somewhere between 150 and 200 terror suspects in our Federal court system with a conviction rate right around 100%. Security considerations have been raised by federal prosecutors and addressed adequately by the courts in those trials.

Then months of trial, much to the love of the media, and on to the endless appeal processes. With any luck this show may be over before your children reach your current age.

In this case a military trial would help control a lot of the bullshit we are going to be subjected to.

Secret trials? They're unconstitutional.

Were I to have my way, they would be tried Judge Roy Bean style, executed by beheading if guilty and the parts buried seperate from each other, but then I'm just another arrogant American Ass.

That sounds more like Osama style to me.

When we begin acting like the terrorists we're losing.

EDIT: which means we've been losing since day 1.

John

Fast_Eddie
11-18-2009, 11:14 AM
Were I to have my way, they would be tried Judge Roy Bean style, executed by beheading if guilty and the parts buried seperate from each other, but then I'm just another arrogant American Ass.

I don't think you're an arrogant American Ass. But I do wonder if you really mean this. I mean with the shoe on the other foot, would you want Americans treated this way? And if we don't want others to do it, aren't we charged with the responsability of doing it right?

You know, we *do* have spys. If one were caught in Iran (I'm not talking about those kids they're holding- that's bull- but an actual American spy) would you be outraged if they were shot in the head with no trial?

Boreas
11-18-2009, 11:20 AM
Even FDR tried German spies in a tribunal and shot them.

On American soil to boot. We didn't used to monkey around.

Pete

The rules of war governing the treatment of spies isn't what we're dealing with here. We're dealing with criminals, mass murderers.

John

piece-itpete
11-18-2009, 11:38 AM
A lot of Constitution this or that. If that were true, how did the guys who wrote the darn thing allow military tribunals?

Pete

Sandy G
11-18-2009, 11:44 AM
I always see a paradox when I see these comments. I don't mean to speak for you Sandy, so tell me if you disagree. Just using this as an example, well, 'cause it's right here in front of me.

We have a group of guys who hijack some planes and crash them into buildings. Who's responsible? Afghanistan for creating an environment that harbors terrorists. Iraq for, um, being in the same part of the world or something. All of Islam for believing in a religion that these people use as an excuse for their actions. Okay, not my beliefs, but some folks feel this way. Here's where I get confused.

Often, these same people (again, Sandy, you may not be one of them) are keen on talking a lot about "personal responsibility". A black kid grows up with a single mom in the projects. Mom's on drugs and kid basically raises himself. Doesn't eat regularly and doesn't go to school because he's a kid and would rather not and there's no family structure to make him. Mom kicks the kid out when he's 17 'cause she doesn't have any money and would rather spend what she does have on drugs.

So kid sells drugs, makes money and kills people. Who's to blame? The Mom who didn't do her job as a parent? The community that allowed the kid to fall through the cracks and not have a shot at a decent life? The school that didn't send the truant officer to his house and get his but in class? The Government that makes drugs illegal but doesn't enforce the laws sufficiently to deter drug sales? The Christian Faith that so many of his fellow country men hold that allows this to go on and does nothing to stop it?

No, the kid is. He has to take personal responsibility for his actions.

A lot of cognitive dissonance going on.

Why is Islam to blame? Didn't these men make their own decision?

True enuff, Eddie, but when was the last time we saw a Southern Baptist, a Lutheran, or even a PRESBYTERIAN do the same thing ? Even the Catlicks 'n' the Prodestunts in Northern Ireland never resorted to mass murder on a scale as these wahoos do..And I don't know too much about Catholic theology, but I don't think they are COMPELLED by their faith to kill all "Infidels"... Even the most backwards fundamentalists here-And boy, we got 'em here by the bushel-Want any ?- aren't interested in BEHEADING you if you don't wanna be a fundamentalist. Hindus, I think, could care less if you wanna be a Hindu or not. Jews prolly won't raise a stink if you don't wanna be a Jew. No, these byrds are fundamentally different than any other religion-or at least as it has evolved lately.

merrylander
11-18-2009, 12:02 PM
Well not totally, the Hindus did quite a number on the Sikhs if memory serves. True that Islam seems tied to the seventh century and it is not only we infidels they seem pretty adept at slaughtering each other.

BlueStreak
11-18-2009, 12:12 PM
Personally, I'd like to tie them to posts, shove a pork chop into their mouths, then sew their eyelids open and force them to watch me wipe my ass with pages from the Koran. Then when i'm done with that drag them up and down my street behind the Mighty BlueStreak until there is nothing left but a bloody stump that I would then feed to my dogs.

This would be my primal urge.

On a somewhat higher plane;

Has it occurred to you that if we were to just simply kill them, that we would just be giving them what they want?

Martyrdom.

That perhaps, dragging it out, toying with them incessantly, and telling them all the while that we will most likely, ultimately find them guilty anyhow might just be a form of psychological torture?

Besides, I'm thinking some very interesting things are set to come out of these trials............

Dave

spasmo55
11-18-2009, 12:13 PM
I don't think you're an arrogant American Ass. But I do wonder if you really mean this. I mean with the shoe on the other foot, would you want Americans treated this way? And if we don't want others to do it, aren't we charged with the responsability of doing it right?

You know, we *do* have spys. If one were caught in Iran (I'm not talking about those kids they're holding- that's bull- but an actual American spy) would you be outraged if they were shot in the head with no trial?

If Americans were to commit such an act as these men, I would have no qualms with them being treated however that nation felt just in doing. These men are not criminals, they are rogues, who commited an act of war and whether it was with the blessing of their home nation (I don't think you could get them to say that publicly) or not they should be treated as such.

I think our first step should be to have the nation or nations they claim to be a citizen of confirm their citizenship. I see the potential for alleviating the burden of allowing them protections of Art III Sec II as the framers certainly did not have anything like this in mind when it was written. Further I think our constitution should be ammended to correct this problem with rogues, as they should be treated like "Pirates", something we can relate to recently.

As this was a coordinated attack carried out in 2 states and DC simultaneously, I beleave Congress has the authority to determine venue, for those that may have forgotten PA and the Pentagon.

Spying is an act violating the soveirnty of a nation, and as above deserves no quarter. Stating that everyone does it does not make it a different crime. No I would not be outraged, the risk is inherent with the action.

For those of you who feel differently and think these creatures deserve the rights of due process, and that will make you the better human, enjoy the show. You may want to check your back during the intermissions!!

Boreas
11-18-2009, 12:20 PM
A lot of Constitution this or that.

Yeah, as "W" said, "It's just a God-damned piece of paper."

If that were true, how did the guys who wrote the darn thing allow military tribunals?

Pete

Military tribunals are authorized specifically to try members of enemy military forces in wartime. They exist to try cases brought by the military.

The defendants are not part of a military. We are not in a declared war. The charges against the suspects were not brought by the military.

The events of 9/11 were crimes. They need to be tried in civilian courts as crimes.

John

d-ray657
11-18-2009, 12:24 PM
If Americans were to commit such an act as these men, I would have no qualms with them being treated however that nation felt just in doing. These men are not criminals, they are rogues, who commited an act of war and whether it was with the blessing of their home nation (I don't think you could get them to say that publicly) or not they should be treated as such.

I think our first step should be to have the nation or nations they claim to be a citizen of confirm their citizenship. I see the potential for alleviating the burden of allowing them protections of Art III Sec II as the framers certainly did not have anything like this in mind when it was written. Further I think our constitution should be ammended to correct this problem with rogues, as they should be treated like "Pirates", something we can relate to recently.

As this was a coordinated attack carried out in 2 states and DC simultaneously, I beleave Congress has the authority to determine venue, for those that may have forgotten PA and the Pentagon.

Spying is an act violating the soveirnty of a nation, and as above deserves no quarter. Stating that everyone does it does not make it a different crime. No I would not be outraged, the risk is inherent with the action.

For those of you who feel differently and think these creatures deserve the rights of due process, and that will make you the better human, enjoy the show. You may want to check your back during the intermissions!!

You are assuming that individuals who have been charged with a crime are guilty of the crime. The defendant is innocent until proven guilty. If they are proven guilty under our system of law, then we can be confident that they are guilty. If we punish them without a trial, we davalue our claim to be a nation of laws. The need for due process is evident when people jump to conclusions about guilt without having heard the evidence.

Regards,

D-Ray

piece-itpete
11-18-2009, 12:36 PM
Military tribunals are authorized specifically to try members of enemy military forces in wartime. They exist to try cases brought by the military.

The defendants are not part of a military. We are not in a declared war. The charges against the suspects were not brought by the military.

The events of 9/11 were crimes. They need to be tried in civilian courts as crimes.

John

We have declared the members of this organisation 'enemy combatants'.

And they are clearly an enemy.

Just because international law (whatever that nebulous thing is) hasn't dealt with this doesn't make it real.

Pete

Charles
11-18-2009, 06:06 PM
Every time I turn around I see a republican in fear.

Now the latest, it is to dangerous to place terrorists on trial in NYC.

Honest, what is up with that?

When did the Cheney doctrine "Keep them scared and they will follow" become the theme song of the right?

I find it so surreal and absurd that the same group that loves to talk about how tough they are when draped in guns are scared of their own shadow.

What is up with that?

I really have no idea what you're talking about, other than suggesting that republicans are all Cheney dupes and gutless gun owners.

But I'll give it a shot. Perhaps concerns about transporting the defendants to and from court? For one?

Now I have a question for you.

Is it common for liberals to feel compelled to insult those that they disagree with?

Chas

noonereal
11-18-2009, 06:14 PM
I really have no idea what you're talking about, other than suggesting that republicans are all Cheney dupes and gutless gun owners.


Honest Chas, you are unaware of the republican strategy of fear? come on.

But I'll give it a shot. Perhaps concerns about transporting the defendants to and from court? For one?

Why a concern?

Now I have a question for you.

Is it common for liberals to feel compelled to insult those that they disagree with?

Chas

No it is not. I am trying to expose a strategy used by the GOP that is contradictory.

If you ever feel insulted by me it is not intended. I do admit I become very disgusted with some of the stuff going on on the right but I generally do not target folks individually. (unless they have repeatedly done that to me)

hillbilly
11-18-2009, 06:33 PM
Not going to say Republicans are cowards. Not only would I be insulting myself as well as others, the locals could also burn me out. :)

Fast_Eddie
11-18-2009, 06:45 PM
Is it common for liberals to feel compelled to insult those that they disagree with?

Seriously? It's a one way street? Un-American ring a bell? "You're with the terrorists?" Anything? Were you in the United States for the eight years prior to the curent administration? For God's sake, I was starting to think it was illegal to be a Democrat.

HatchetJack
11-18-2009, 06:58 PM
They should call out the Dems more often but every day brings a new blunder
and they just keep digging themselves into a deeper hole while the right slowly
regains power. Voters are not stupid and more everyday realize they have been duped.
Women across the country are outraged by that mammogram guidline. I see they backed
off that today but women, they never forget
and not many are pleased by our President bowing down to
the communists and sheiks.

noonereal
11-18-2009, 07:06 PM
They should call out the Dems more often but every day brings a new blunder
and they just keep digging themselves into a deeper hole while the right slowly
regains power. Voters are not stupid and more everyday realize they have been duped.
Women across the country are outraged by that mammogram guidline. I see they backed
off that today but women, they never forget
and not many are pleased by our President bowing down to
the communists and sheiks.

Is the United States Preventive Services Task Force a democratic entity?
I did not know that.
And all that bowing bothers ya.

Sounds to me like you live in Alaska. :D

yep, Sarah clearly has a following.

Boreas
11-18-2009, 07:16 PM
[QUOTE]Just because international law (whatever that nebulous thing is) hasn't dealt with this doesn't make it real.

Not international law, our law.

John

d-ray657
11-18-2009, 07:27 PM
Voters are not stupid . . .

I dunno, Bush got two terms

but women, they never forget

Not all women are as vindictive as Sarah Palin

not many are pleased by our President bowing down to
the communists and sheiks.

That's called courtesy and diplomacy, which wasn't part of Bush's foreign policy. He preferred to demonize opponents, and thus became the poster-boy for terrorist recruiters.

The world is too small anymore for everything to be us and them. Foreign leaders are not going to disappear simply because we shun them. I know that diplomacy hurts the industrial military complex, but after eight years of fattening up, they can stand some lean years.

Regards,

D-Ray

Boreas
11-18-2009, 07:35 PM
They should call out the Dems more often but every day brings a new blunder and they just keep digging themselves into a deeper hole while the right slowly
regains power. Voters are not stupid and more everyday realize they have been duped.

So, what haven't the Dems been "called out" on, Jack?

Women across the country are outraged by that mammogram guidline. I see they backed off that today but women, they never forget

Women never forget. Sexist much?

And the Democrats haven't backed off of anything. There was never a policy change regarding mammograms. It was a recommendation from a board within DHS. The board members were all appointed during the Bush/Cheney Administration.

and not many are pleased by our President bowing down to
the communists and sheiks.

This is pure foolishness. I guess it would have been better if Obama had smooched them, held their hand and given them back rubs.

By the way, Nixon bowed to Mao Tse Dung when he went to China and Eisenhower bowed to Emperor Hirohito. I guess that was okay, though, since they were Republicans.

John

PS: for the record, I think the premise and wording of Noone's thread was offensive too but it stimulated some good conversation until people started making an issue of it. Oh, well!

Charles
11-18-2009, 08:26 PM
No it is not. I am trying to expose a strategy used by the GOP that is contradictory.

If you ever feel insulted by me it is not intended. I do admit I become very disgusted with some of the stuff going on on the right but I generally do not target folks individually. (unless they have repeatedly done that to me)

I think that the republicans address the concerns of voters, not their fears. That said, both parties use every dirty trick in the book when it comes to gaining power.

As to my concern about transporting KSM to court. This would be a perfect time for his associates to make a strike. Security will be more of an issue than it was in GITMO.

And Noon, don't worry about insulting me, I don't take it personally. I was simply trying to make a point.

Chas

BlueStreak
11-18-2009, 09:21 PM
They should call out the Dems more often but every day brings a new blunder
and they just keep digging themselves into a deeper hole while the right slowly
regains power. Voters are not stupid and more everyday realize they have been duped.
Women across the country are outraged by that mammogram guidline. I see they backed
off that today but women, they never forget
and not many are pleased by our President bowing down to
the communists and sheiks.

Bowing is the same as shaking hands in Asia, it's merely a gesture of friendship and respect. Would you rather he goes around slapping foreign leaders and spitting in their faces? And how many clips/photos of the Shrubberies and Cheney paling around with Arab sheiks, practically blowing them, before you figure that one out? Hell, didn't GW have one that regularly came to town and stayed at the Whitehouse? WTF?:confused: This is what makes the whole "Bowgate" thing such a canard. But, it doesn't surprise me, it's just another example that solidifies my belief that that Nazi bastard Goebbels was right, the masses are "as cattle to slaughter". All they need is a tough cowboy figure to lead them to the chute. (See attached photo.)

Dave

BlueStreak
11-18-2009, 09:25 PM
Sorry, my bad. That's not a tough cowboy, it's an actor pretending to be a tough cowboy. Then some years later he pretended to be President, while Don Regan ran the country. (See attached photo. It's Don Regan. Seen here commanding his puppet to "Speed it up.")

Dave

Boreas
11-18-2009, 09:29 PM
As to my concern about transporting KSM to court. This would be a perfect time for his associates to make a strike. Security will be more of an issue than it was in GITMO.

So, you think that if we tried KSM in Guantanamo his "associates" would attack there? Not at all? What conceivable difference would it make to them where he was tried?

Really, these arguments make no sense at all.

John

d-ray657
11-18-2009, 10:55 PM
How's this for a thread title: "Republicans have nothing to fear but the lack of a threat."

If there isn't a real one they'll manufacture one. Bush/Cheney preferred to have a vague boogeyman that they referred to as "the enemy", without ever defining who is the enemy.

Regards,

D-Ray

noonereal
11-19-2009, 06:46 AM
As to my concern about transporting KSM to court. This would be a perfect time for his associates to make a strike. Security will be more of an issue than it was in GITMO.





How many perfect times for a "strike" have there been since 911?

honest, do you recall? In NY we had a power outage in 02 and everyone though an attack was underway. Every 4th of July Washington and NY were on lock down. Bush and Cheney are gone. Let's get back to normalcy.


We will be struck again no matter what we do. If they use this as a trigger, what is the difference?
Honest, what?

merrylander
11-19-2009, 06:51 AM
They should call out the Dems more often but every day brings a new blunder
and they just keep digging themselves into a deeper hole while the right slowly
regains power. Voters are not stupid and more everyday realize they have been duped.
Women across the country are outraged by that mammogram guidline. I see they backed
off that today but women, they never forget
and not many are pleased by our President bowing down to
the communists and sheiks.

Guess you don't watch CSPAN much, it is the Republicans who are gumming up the works in the Senate, with assistance from those dimwit Blue Dogs. Unfortunatly jug ears got his come uppance on the filibuster vote yesterday.

Women upset? Guess you have never asked many women how the feel about Marquis de Sade's mammogram machine, or about how many fasle positives it gives. When you talk to one who has been through the process come back and let me know what she said.

Bowing down to commies and shieks, gosh didn't tricky Dick go to China first? I see somethings never change, when a Republican President does it that's fine, but let a Democartic President do it and it is treason. As has been pointed out bowing is more common in Asia than handshakes. Although I do recall that amongst Koreans if they shake your hand and reach out with their left hand and touch your elbow it is a sign of much respect. I was quite flattered when the South Korean software engineers I taught did this.

Of course maybe since your avatar had Alzheimer's that 'splains a lot.

Charles
11-19-2009, 06:54 AM
So, you think that if we tried KSM in Guantanamo his "associates" would attack there? Not at all? What conceivable difference would it make to them where he was tried?

Really, these arguments make no sense at all.

John

Simply saying that security will be more difficult in NYC as opposed to GITMO.

Chas

merrylander
11-19-2009, 06:56 AM
The only problem I see with trying the five in New York concerns our laws. We state that people are to be tried by a jury of their peers. Now where in hell are they going to find twelve people in New York who are that depraved and evil? Maybe Wall Street? I dunno.

noonereal
11-19-2009, 07:14 AM
Simply saying that security will be more difficult in NYC as opposed to GITMO.

Chas

We have the UN in NYC. How is this hard to handle.

piece-itpete
11-19-2009, 07:39 AM
...the locals could also burn me out. :)

....where in hell are they going to find twelve people in New York who are that depraved and evil? Maybe Wall Street?...

....slapping foreign leaders and spitting in their faces ...


Lmao!! Man, you guys are killing me!



Not international law, our law.

John

Then how did we do it before? Why are there even tribunals in the first place? These murderous thugs deserve nothing from us.

Bowing is the same as shaking hands in Asia, it's merely a gesture of friendship and respect. Would you rather he goes around slapping foreign leaders and spitting in their faces? And how many clips/photos of the Shrubberies and Cheney paling around with Arab sheiks, practically blowing them, before you figure that one out? Hell, didn't GW have one that regularly came to town and stayed at the Whitehouse? WTF?:confused: This is what makes the whole "Bowgate" thing such a canard. But, it doesn't surprise me, it's just another example that solidifies my belief that that Nazi bastard Goebbels was right, the masses are "as cattle to slaughter". All they need is a tough cowboy figure to lead them to the chute. (See attached photo.)

Dave

Well Bush sure got pilloried for the whole sheik thing and turnabout is fair play. That said it really is a tempest in a teapot - we do need to observe local customs when dealing with other countries, of course.

Cattle to the slaughter? CHANGE.

Pete

spasmo55
11-19-2009, 08:04 AM
Well unfortunately this thread like so many others has degraded into:

The Republicans are bad, Oh No, the Democrats are bad and both sides site their examples of stupid shit the other guys did, Well No Shit Sherlock!!

Maybe you folks should look further down the ticket the next time you are in the voting booth.

As to the "Trials" of the "Detainees", well if you have confidence in "Our" current legal system, that makes me beleave that I am not the only naive person in this country.

Please don't quote to me how it is based on the historical practices of "English" law, and how it is what elevates our society to the highest levels of civility in the modern world, frankly that is bullshit. The Sam Waterston speeches on Law & Order have failed to penetrate my intellect.

Our current legal system lacks one key ingrediant, "Justice", and you do not need a Harvard degree to grasp that concept, any country hick can tell you what it is.

If you are concerned with what the world will think about how our country handles this, then you do not control your house, your neighbor does.

Try them by a panel of judges as you will never seat a proper jury here, if innocent send them home with our apologies, if guilty load them on a plane and crash it with them on board, that would be simple justice.

merrylander
11-19-2009, 08:06 AM
Cattle to the slaughter? CHANGE.

Pete

So I take it you want the staus quo? Overpaid excecutives? Investment bankers bringing the country to its knees? People being bankrupted by health care costs. Excessive drug prices? Lobbyiists bribing congress at every turn in the road?
:rolleyes:

JCricket
11-19-2009, 08:47 AM
I always see a paradox when I see these comments. I don't mean to speak for you Sandy, so tell me if you disagree. Just using this as an example, well, 'cause it's right here in front of me.

We have a group of guys who hijack some planes and crash them into buildings. Who's responsible? Afghanistan for creating an environment that harbors terrorists. Iraq for, um, being in the same part of the world or something. All of Islam for believing in a religion that these people use as an excuse for their actions. Okay, not my beliefs, but some folks feel this way. Here's where I get confused.

Often, these same people (again, Sandy, you may not be one of them) are keen on talking a lot about "personal responsibility". A black kid grows up with a single mom in the projects. Mom's on drugs and kid basically raises himself. Doesn't eat regularly and doesn't go to school because he's a kid and would rather not and there's no family structure to make him. Mom kicks the kid out when he's 17 'cause she doesn't have any money and would rather spend what she does have on drugs.

So kid sells drugs, makes money and kills people. Who's to blame? The Mom who didn't do her job as a parent? The community that allowed the kid to fall through the cracks and not have a shot at a decent life? The school that didn't send the truant officer to his house and get his but in class? The Government that makes drugs illegal but doesn't enforce the laws sufficiently to deter drug sales? The Christian Faith that so many of his fellow country men hold that allows this to go on and does nothing to stop it?

No, the kid is. He has to take personal responsibility for his actions.

A lot of cognitive dissonance going on.

Why is Islam to blame? Didn't these men make their own decision?

Hey Fast eddie, trying to follow exactly what you are saying here. I am going to try and paraphrase. If I am off base please correct me.

You start with the 9/11 attack - who is to blame?

Then you give the example of a child raised poorly and having issues - who is to blame?

You state the child needs to be responsioble - correct?
You then state that the terrorist are responsible for their own actions - correct?

I think your pont was that we need to quit generalizing responsibilites on to groups, and put the responsibility onto the individuals who make choices - correct?

Am I on track here?

Fast_Eddie
11-19-2009, 08:58 AM
Is it common for liberals to feel compelled to insult those that they disagree with?

That said, both parties use every dirty trick in the book when it comes to gaining power.

I'll call that growth.

Fast_Eddie
11-19-2009, 09:01 AM
Hey Fast eddie, trying to follow exactly what you are saying here. I am going to try and paraphrase. If I am off base please correct me.

You start with the 9/11 attack - who is to blame?

Then you give the example of a child raised poorly and having issues - who is to blame?

You state the child needs to be responsioble - correct?
You then state that the terrorist are responsible for their own actions - correct?

I think your pont was that we need to quit generalizing responsibilites on to groups, and put the responsibility onto the individuals who make choices - correct?

Am I on track here?

Well, I didn't draw a conclusion as to which line of thought is correct. I believe the answer is in the middle somewhere. I just find it ironic that there is a group of people talking about "personal responsablility" a whole lot who then turn around and blame a group when a few individuals do something terrible.

Fast_Eddie
11-19-2009, 09:03 AM
Maybe you folks should look further down the ticket the next time you are in the voting booth.

I agree- all my Republican friends should look further down the ticket. Of course we Democrats like our guy just fine. We'll all vote for him because we think he's the best person for the job. And you should all vote for the person you think best for the job regardless of party affiliation. :D

Fast_Eddie
11-19-2009, 09:04 AM
not many are pleased by our President bowing down to
the communists and sheiks.

He should have thown up on their shoes.

merrylander
11-19-2009, 09:19 AM
He should have thown up on their shoes.

:D:D:D

Boreas
11-19-2009, 09:22 AM
Simply saying that security will be more difficult in NYC as opposed to GITMO.

Chas

So what? What would prevent KSM's vast hordes of terrorists from attacking New York (or Washington or LA or Chicago) while the trial was going on in Cuba?

John

piece-itpete
11-19-2009, 09:37 AM
So I take it you want the staus quo? Overpaid excecutives? Investment bankers bringing the country to its knees? People being bankrupted by health care costs. Excessive drug prices? Lobbyiists bribing congress at every turn in the road?
:rolleyes:

And Obama is doing what exactly about this? Keeping the big money people in and hiring lobbyists? Yep. When he said CHANGE, he was taking about his post-election tune.

Well, I didn't draw a conclusion as to which line of thought is correct. I believe the answer is in the middle somewhere. I just find it ironic that there is a group of people talking about "personal responsablility" a whole lot who then turn around and blame a group when a few individuals do something terrible.

There is no doubt that a large number of moderate Muslims are sympathetic to the radicals and that they operate out of Mosques.

Pete

Fast_Eddie
11-19-2009, 09:58 AM
There is no doubt that a large number of moderate Muslims are sympathetic to the radicals and that they operate out of Mosques.

Pete

Well, could be I guess. But, no, I'm not buying "no doubt". If you want me to swallow that you'll have to back it up with some objective documentation.

As for the converse in the arguement I made about the young criminal- there *is* no doubt that there are terrible parents and there are people in our socieity who are racists- some on this forum are openly so. I'm just saying you can't yell "personal responsability" at the top of your lungs for one and not the other.

merrylander
11-19-2009, 10:08 AM
And Obama is doing what exactly about this? Keeping the big money people in and hiring lobbyists? Yep. When he said CHANGE, he was taking about his post-election tune.

Pete


Pete, in case you had not noticed he is President, not the Dictator, though maybe Franklin was right when he surmised that our Constitutional government would do well for a time until we bacame so corrupt as to require a dictator.

piece-itpete
11-19-2009, 10:14 AM
Pete, in case you had not noticed he is President, not the Dictator, though maybe Franklin was right when he surmised that our Constitutional government would do well for a time until we bacame so corrupt as to require a dictator.

Perhaps he should've known that a few months ago? He's a smart guy, right?

And I agree, and I think the time is coming soon, sadly.

Pete

merrylander
11-19-2009, 10:31 AM
Perhaps he should've known that a few months ago? He's a smart guy, right?

And I agree, and I think the time is coming soon, sadly.

Pete

I confess he is somewhat naive if he believed the Democrats could get organized enough to accomplish anything, let alone help the Republicans to block everything.

An example; the good Senator Stupid ^H^H ack says no one should be forced to pay for another woman's abortion because they think it is bad. Hey Bart, I object to the stupid war in Iraq, can I have my taxes back?

I mean when you are dealing with such a collection of horse's arses what in hell do you expect.

Coming soon? Don't bother it's here.

Charles
11-19-2009, 10:32 AM
So what? What would prevent KSM's vast hordes of terrorists from attacking New York (or Washington or LA or Chicago) while the trial was going on in Cuba?

John

Nothing.

He will just require a sizeable security detail in NYC that wouldn't have been necessary in GITMO.

Chas

Fast_Eddie
11-19-2009, 10:37 AM
Nothing.

He will just require a sizeable security detail in NYC that wouldn't have been necessary in GITMO.

Chas

This is the primary reason for the outrage? Hum. Okay. It seems possible to me that we as a nation have faced greater challenges. Certainly are facing bigger ones at this moment. Not at all possible, you don't suppose, that you only care so much about this "security issue" because it's something to knock Obama on? I could be wrong. Maybe there is a huge implication to this I'm missing. But it does seem just a little, I don't know, petty to be going on about that.

Boreas
11-19-2009, 10:41 AM
Nothing.

He will just require a sizeable security detail in NYC that wouldn't have been necessary in GITMO.

Chas

You don't think there would be beefed up security in New York & elsewhere during a Guantanamo trial for KSM?

John

Fast_Eddie
11-19-2009, 10:41 AM
Hey Bart, I object to the stupid war in Iraq, can I have my taxes back?

Or as I often like to say "why should *I* have to pay for *your* war?" Invisible with liberty and justice, indeed.

Charles
11-19-2009, 11:27 AM
This is the primary reason for the outrage? Hum. Okay. It seems possible to me that we as a nation have faced greater challenges. Certainly are facing bigger ones at this moment. Not at all possible, you don't suppose, that you only care so much about this "security issue" because it's something to knock Obama on? I could be wrong. Maybe there is a huge implication to this I'm missing. But it does seem just a little, I don't know, petty to be going on about that.

Outrage?

I'm not outraged at all. Actually, I don't give a fuck one way or the other. He should have been dead years ago. Bush should have seen to that, whether anyone liked it or not.

Simply stating that it will require a considerable security detail to handle a prisoner of this caliber. I don't see how stating the obvious is knocking anyone.

The quicker it's over the better.

Chas

Boreas
11-19-2009, 11:57 AM
Simply stating that it will require a considerable security detail to handle a prisoner of this caliber. I don't see how stating the obvious is knocking anyone.

But you seem to think there's an alternative and there really isn't. No matter what sort of justice KSM receives and where he receives it, there will be the need for increased security everywhere, not just outside the courtroom.

Suppose someone just walked into KSM's cell and put a bullet in his brain? No trial, no media circus, just neat and quick. Even if we did that do you suppose for one instant that we'd be safe from attack?

I'm not ascribing these concerns to you, Chas, but I think the real reason the Neocons are so opposed to a real trial is what might come out about what we've done.

Did you know that we also snatched KSM's children? Did you know that we threatened to torture them to get KSM to confess (to whatever we wanted him to)? Did you know that released DOJ memos indicate that we probably did torture them? They were both under the age of 10.

John

Fast_Eddie
11-19-2009, 12:40 PM
Simply stating that it will require a considerable security detail to handle a prisoner of this caliber. I don't see how stating the obvious is knocking anyone.

You know, they'll have to pay people to vacuum that court room at the end of the evening. How are we going to pay for that? And the janitorial service better not employ illegals.

Just pointing out some of the potential pit-falls.

Charles
11-19-2009, 01:23 PM
Gawd!!!!

Just because you guys have an agenda concerning this matter doesn't mean that I do.

Thought I already said I don't give a fuck one way or the other.

As far as I'm concerned, they can have the trial anywhere...as long as it ain't in here in Bugtussell. Traffic's bad enough already. If you want to have the dog and pony show in NYC, that's fine by me.

Knock your lights out!!!!

Chas

noonereal
11-19-2009, 01:37 PM
Gawd!!!!

Just because you guys have an agenda concerning this matter doesn't mean that I do.

Thought I already said I don't give a fuck one way or the other.

As far as I'm concerned, they can have the trial anywhere...as long as it ain't in here in Bugtussell. Traffic's bad enough already. If you want to have the dog and pony show in NYC, that's fine by me.

Knock your lights out!!!!

Chas

LOL, I guess I don't seem so bad now. :p

Boreas
11-19-2009, 01:40 PM
Well Bush sure got pilloried for the whole sheik thing and turnabout is fair play.

It was irresistible. How could we ignore the obvious symbolism of Bush literally holding hands with (and kissing) an oil sheik from the country where 17 of the 19 hijackers came from?

John

merrylander
11-19-2009, 01:51 PM
While in fact the NYC police are probably better at security detail than Homeland Security.