PDA

View Full Version : The Kids Are Alright



Boogie man
04-17-2010, 07:24 PM
Holder cows Republican senators into silence on the Gitmo Bar and the CIA.

So now we know why the self-proclaimed “most transparent administration in American history” continues to stonewall rather than reveal the official responsibilities of Justice Department lawyers who volunteered their services to America’s enemies during wartime. Like any good Democrat, Eric Holder says he is doing it for the children.

The attorney general bristled during Senate testimony on Wednesday that he was “not going to allow these kids” to have their reputations dragged “through the mud.” The “kids” coddled in this touching paternal display include 45-year-old Tony West, who now supervises hundreds of lawyers as chief of DOJ’s Civil Division. It’s been 17 years since Tony the Kid first served as an influential official in the Clinton Justice Department. From there, he went on to nine-year stint as a hot-shot partner at a prestigious San Francisco law firm — in his spare time running both Barack Obama’s lavish presidential campaign in California and the defense of John Walker Lindh, the “American Taliban” convicted on terrorism charges after making war on his country.

They grow up so quickly, don’t they? Kids like 40-year-old Neal Katyal, the current deputy solicitor general who, as Byron York observes, was a Georgetown law professor when he volunteered to represent Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s personal driver and bodyguard, who was apprehended transporting missiles in Afghanistan.

Then there’s precocious 38-year-old Jennifer Daskal. Over Holder’s dead body will anyone drag her reputation through the mud, insinuating that she spent her pre-DOJ years cheerleading for terrorists and running down her country when, in point of fact, Daskal spent her pre-DOJ years . . . cheerleading for terrorists and running down her country. When not campaigning on behalf of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (as if Bush had needed to torture him into confessing to atrocities he can’t stop bragging about) and Omar Khadr (accused of murdering an American serviceman), Daskal was pleading with the United Nations to designate the United States a rogue nation that systematically abuses prisoners, secretly imprisons suspects, applies the death penalty in a racially discriminatory manner, uses the “cloak of federalism” to conceal its serial violations of international law, invokes “the so-called ‘war on terror’” as a pretext for shredding the Bill of Rights, and, of course, harms our children — by subjecting juvenile criminals to life imprisonment when they commit murders.

Daskal also made time during her tenure at Human Rights Watch to expose a top-secret CIA program to detain high-level al-Qaeda operatives in overseas prisons. She and her HRW colleagues pooled intelligence from other fearless patriots who had volunteered to help terrorists bring lawsuits against the United States. As Tom Joscelyn and Debra Burlingame recount, that project had nothing to do with the lawful purpose of representing the terrorists — to challenge the validity of their detention as enemy combatants — but did involve extensive violation of court orders.

It’s interesting that Daskal should have entangled herself in that effort because — wouldn’t you know it! — the Gitmo Bar just happens to have been involved in another conspiracy to compromise the CIA, in this case by hiring private investigators to stalk intelligence officers, snap pictures of them, and then smuggle the photos into Gitmo so that top terrorists could try to identify them. The plan seems to have proceeded in a manner remarkably similar to HRW’s plot to expose the secret prisons, with Gitmo barristers pooling information and violating court orders. An ongoing criminal investigation had to be assigned to a new prosecutor from outside Main Justice after the CIA complained that Holder’s minions didn’t see what the big deal was about a little stalking — of intelligence operatives.

Meantime, under the direction of these wonderful kids, the Justice Department has pushed to expose classified information about the interrogation and detention of prisoners, to reopen cases against the CIA that had been closed because professional prosecutors found insufficient evidence of wrongdoing, to subject Bush Justice Department lawyers to professional sanctions, to extend Miranda protections to war criminals, and to grant full-blown civilian trials to alien enemy combatants held overseas. Can you imagine that anyone would have the temerity to suggest that maybe, just maybe, a department rife with political appointees who voluntarily lined up with the terrorists against the government during the Bush years might be just a teeny-tiny bit influenced by that experience? That they might have a predisposition that could be affecting their policy judgments?

Well, fear not. There is no such temerity. Judiciary Committee Republicans let the whole thing slide. There was not a single question at Wednesday’s hearing about stalking the CIA, nor a single question about Daskal and what she’s been doing since Holder brought her into the Justice Department. The attorney general’s palaver about “patriotism” went completely unchallenged: No questions about whether Holder thinks spying on the CIA is a proper role for lawyers whose only legitimate function is to litigate the legality of detention; no questions about whether Holder thinks lawyers exhibit patriotism when they violate court orders; no questions about what might have made the CIA believe Holder’s aides were not taking the stalking investigation seriously.

Holder’s “patriotism” gambit, like his specious portrayal of experienced, accomplished government attorneys as abused children, is a smokescreen. Republicans ought to be laughing at it, not cowed by it. The fact that we permit lawyers to volunteer their services to our wartime enemies doesn’t make the lawyers who do so patriots — any more than ambulance-chasers are patriots just because it’s legal to chase ambulances. When Eric Holder was an Obama campaign adviser, he didn’t just question the patriotism of Bush DOJ lawyers, he accused them of facilitating war crimes and insisted there needed to be a “reckoning” of their purported misdeeds. Those lawyers were working against the terrorists. But we’re not supposed to talk about lawyers who work for the terrorists.

Republicans sat mum as their Democratic counterparts lauded the Gitmo Bar for its “courage” and falsely accused critics of claiming that lawyers who flocked to al-Qaeda’s service are “disqualified” from future government service. Mightn’t one GOP senator have pointed out that critics are simply demanding the transparency and accountability that President Obama and his attorney general promised? They certainly seemed to have reservoirs of indignation when Al Gonzales was attorney general.

Obama is a radical of the Left, but the American people elected him. It is to be expected that, once in office, he would appoint other radicals of the Left. We’re not saying they’re disqualified. We’re saying Americans are entitled to know who they are and what they’re doing. And if Democrats truly believe their Gitmo Bar activities were courageously patriotic, then why aren’t they eager to tell us who they are and what they’re doing?

We don’t have to imagine what would happen if officials tied to a Republican administration were alleged to have compromised a CIA agent. We saw it happen: Democrats raised holy hell and milked it into a multi-year scandal. Now we have a real scandal, orders of magnitude more severe than Valerie Plame Wilson’s exposure, and we can’t even get a question asked about it? While the Republicans are playing it safe, the Left is playing for keeps.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books, 2008).

http://article.nationalreview.com/431732/the-kids-are-alright/andrew-c-mccarthy?page=1

Boogie man
04-17-2010, 07:30 PM
This is what democrats do. They make mountains out of mole hills and mole hills out of mountains, depending on their agenda. That's fine if it's politics, but when it comes to the security and safety of American citizens then it's downright traitorous in my opinion.

Binky
04-17-2010, 07:35 PM
This is what democrats do. They make mountains out of mole hills and mole hills out of mountains, depending on their agenda. That's fine if it's politics, but when it comes to the security and safety of American citizens then it's downright traitorous in my opinion.


And you think the dems are the only ones that do that? :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

Boogie man
04-17-2010, 07:42 PM
And you think the dems are the only ones that do that? :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

I know General Electric does business with Iran and I think that is wrong also.

Do you know of any repubs who help terrorists? If there are any then they are scum also.

mrmeangenes
04-17-2010, 08:11 PM
Excuse me, sir: representing someone charged with an offense is NOT promoting or aiding or anything else-ing terrorism !

Lawyers represent clients : warts and all.This has been a ground rule of our justice system since colonial days. (Have you forgotten who defended British soldiers charged with murder as a result of the Boston Massacre ?)

Surely Andy Mc Carthy knows this as well.

CommonCents
04-17-2010, 08:36 PM
The question is, were these lawyers ordered to represent the terrorists, or did they volunteer?

Being ordered to defend them is doing their job, but volunteering means you have to have a soft spot in your heart for these animals. That's how I see it.

mwillman
04-17-2010, 08:41 PM
The question is, were these lawyers ordered to represent the terrorists, or did they volunteer?

Being ordered to defend them is doing their job, but volunteering means you have to have a soft spot in your heart for these animals. That's how I see it.

Ah, So you think John Adams had a soft spot for the British.
:lmao2: :lmao2:

Sometimes they volunteer because they believe that everyone deserves their day in court. Maybe they volunteer because they believe in our legal system.
:thumbsup:

CommonCents
04-17-2010, 08:46 PM
Ah, So you think John Quincy Adams had a soft spot for the British.
:lmao2: :lmao2:

Sometimes they volunteer because they believe that everyone deserves their day in court. Maybe they volunteer because they believe in our legal system.
:thumbsup:

I have respect for enemies of a civilized war, such as German and Japanese soldiers from WWII. I have no respect at all for Islamic terrorists, because they target innocent women and children, instead of attacking those who they say are the enemy.

I didn't expect someone like you to know the difference between the two.

slowhand
04-17-2010, 08:53 PM
I have respect for enemies of a civilized war, such as German and Japanese soldiers from WWII. I have no respect at all for Islamic terrorists, because they target innocent women and children, instead of attacking those who they say are the enemy.

I didn't expect someone like you to know the difference between the two.

Civilized war?..What was "civilized about it?

mwillman
04-17-2010, 09:19 PM
I have respect for enemies of a civilized war, such as German and Japanese soldiers from WWII. I have no respect at all for Islamic terrorists, because they target innocent women and children, instead of attacking those who they say are the enemy.

I didn't expect someone like you to know the difference between the two.

What I know is you either don't know any real history or you only learned a nice sanitized version of history. No one was civilized in WW2. They bombed civilians, we bombed civilians, They did horrible things to people they didn't like and so did we.

You better try again there noncents.

PursuitOfHappinessParty
04-17-2010, 09:50 PM
Ah, So you think John Adams had a soft spot for the British.
:lmao2: :lmao2:

Sometimes they volunteer because they believe that everyone deserves their day in court. Maybe they volunteer because they believe in our legal system.
:thumbsup:

No, Adams correctly believed in the rule of law over the rule of man.
Those Brits were innocent by any measure other than kangaroo court hatred and that was what Adams was defending against.

PursuitOfHappinessParty
04-17-2010, 09:51 PM
I have respect for enemies of a civilized war, such as German and Japanese soldiers from WWII. I have no respect at all for Islamic terrorists, because they target innocent women and children, instead of attacking those who they say are the enemy.

I didn't expect someone like you to know the difference between the two.

WTF?
Which Germans and Japanese soldiers would THAT be?
:lmao2:
Revisionists are such a hoot.

Smurf-Herder
04-18-2010, 10:47 AM
Actually, German and Japanese officers who were guilty of war crimes were tried in military tribunals.

If that puts a little light on the connection.

Boogie man
04-18-2010, 10:53 AM
Excuse me, sir: representing someone charged with an offense is NOT promoting or aiding or anything else-ing terrorism !

Lawyers represent clients : warts and all.This has been a ground rule of our justice system since colonial days. (Have you forgotten who defended British soldiers charged with murder as a result of the Boston Massacre ?)

Surely Andy Mc Carthy knows this as well.

They volunteered their services. They chose. I don't have to accept them. I can choose also.

CommonCents
04-18-2010, 10:57 AM
Actually, German and Japanese officers who were guilty of war crimes were tried in military tribunals.

If that puts a little light on the connection.

All I was saying, is there's a difference between foot soldiers fighting an organized war between nations, and Islamic terrorists that target innocent women and children instead of targeting the people they claim are their enemies.

When a lawyer chooses of his own free will, to defend those terrorist animals, that says a lot about who they are and their loyalty to the United States.

slowhand
04-18-2010, 11:14 AM
All I was saying, is there's a difference between foot soldiers fighting an organized war between nations, and Islamic terrorists that target innocent women and children instead of targeting the people they claim are their enemies.

When a lawyer chooses of his own free will, to defend those terrorist animals, that says a lot about who they are and their loyalty to the United States.

Ohhh..Now its "organized"

Yeah, now that you mention it, the Holocaust was very "organized"..Didnt they kill innocent women and children too?

Dismissing any war as "civilized" or "organized" is ludicrous

Boogie man
04-18-2010, 11:18 AM
Ohhh..Now its "organized"

Yeah, now that you mention it, the Holocaust was very "organized"..Didnt they kill innocent women and children too?

Dismissing any war as "civilized" or "organized" is ludicrous

Civilization fought evil in WWII. Civilization is fighting evil at this time also. The evil is Islamic terrorism.

CommonCents
04-18-2010, 11:18 AM
Ohhh..Now its "organized"

Yeah, now that you mention it, the Holocaust was very "organized"..Didnt they kill innocent women and children too?

Dismissing any war as "civilized" or "organized" is ludicrous

I'm not defending those that took part in the extermination of the Jews. They are no better than the terrorists we face today. I'm talking about the foot soldiers who fought in WWII.

Let me guess, you don't see a difference?

Boogie man
04-18-2010, 11:21 AM
Some of these damn morons think that American revolutionaries from 1776 are the same as the terrorists. This is how they think. They're a couple tacos short of a combination plate.

Smurf-Herder
04-18-2010, 11:27 AM
All I was saying, is there's a difference between foot soldiers fighting an organized war between nations, and Islamic terrorists that target innocent women and children instead of targeting the people they claim are their enemies.

When a lawyer chooses of his own free will, to defend those terrorist animals, that says a lot about who they are and their loyalty to the United States.


My point was, in addition to that, terrorists by nature are war criminals, by the very concept of their terrorist strategy. So they should be tried as war criminals - in a military tribunal. Slightly off-topic. But it adds more concern about lawyers, if they volunteered to defend people guilty of War Crimes against Humanity.

Boogie man
04-18-2010, 11:30 AM
My point was, in addition to that, terrorists by nature are war criminals, by the very concept of their terrorist strategy. So they should be tried as war criminals - in a military tribunal. Slightly off-topic. But it adds more concern about lawyers, if they volunteered to defend people guilty of War Crimes against Humanity.

That's exactly the point. Terrorists are war criminals and should be tried by the military. Their purpose is to overthrow the United States and that is an act of war.

slowhand
04-18-2010, 01:32 PM
I'm not defending those that took part in the extermination of the Jews. They are no better than the terrorists we face today. I'm talking about the foot soldiers who fought in WWII.

Let me guess, you don't see a difference?

There was nothing civilized about it period

foxbaron
04-18-2010, 03:23 PM
I think the difference between WWII and what we have today is that in WWII, there were also atrocities that were committed by all sides but there was also some code of honor too.

The enemy was easily recognizable by their uniforms and when captured were afforded POW status and were treated as such, yet they remained incarcerated until the end of the war at which time they were returned to their country of origin.

In this war on terror we have a hard time telling who the enemy is as they don't wear uniforms and they do not treat captured enemies as POWS.

They also do not confine their attacks to their enemy who is recognizable by the uniforms they wear. They attack everybody, especially women and children, even members of their own society. They do not recognize any kind of rules of war.

For an American attorney to take up their cause against their own country in a time of war sticks in the craw a bit. Had an attorney in WWII done what these attorneys have done they would have been charged with treason.

These attorneys have gone way beyond just defending these guys; they have actively participated in fighting against the US.

As far as I am concerned with these folks now in the DOJ I think the enemy has infiltrated the DOJ. The guys who defended them are now going to prosecute them? I doubt it

PursuitOfHappinessParty
04-19-2010, 01:03 AM
Actually, German and Japanese officers who were guilty of war crimes were tried in military tribunals.

If that puts a little light on the connection.

Hardly any Japanese faced didley and the Germans depended on what knowledge we or the Russians could use them for.

PursuitOfHappinessParty
04-19-2010, 01:14 AM
That's exactly the point. Terrorists are war criminals and should be tried by the military. Their purpose is to overthrow the United States and that is an act of war.

Accused. There's a difference and that difference could, once there is precedence set, be then used elsewheres including here in the U.S. and its citizens.

These aren't 'known' terrorists, the trials are to find if the individual in question is in-fact a terrorist, an insurgent, or possibly just a cab driver who was handed over to us from former insurgents-turned-buddy-for-money-per-prisoner looking to consolidate his post-occupation power.

I can't help but wonder why people are so convinced as to the weakness of due process that they're afraid of its findings in these cases. Or is it that they're guilty because they're brown?

Boogie man
04-19-2010, 11:08 AM
Accused. There's a difference and that difference could, once there is precedence set, be then used elsewheres including here in the U.S. and its citizens.

These aren't 'known' terrorists, the trials are to find if the individual in question is in-fact a terrorist, an insurgent, or possibly just a cab driver who was handed over to us from former insurgents-turned-buddy-for-money-per-prisoner looking to consolidate his post-occupation power.

I can't help but wonder why people are so convinced as to the weakness of due process that they're afraid of its findings in these cases. Or is it that they're guilty because they're brown?

Those that confess are not accused and we have plenty of those.

PursuitOfHappinessParty
04-19-2010, 08:34 PM
Those that confess are not accused and we have plenty of those.

The definition of what's the accepted litmus for 'plenty' would be awful subjective for such a justification.

Since the numbers of confessions I've seen are extremely low and compared to the interrogations so incredibly small as to make the definition 'plenty' rather weak.

But we digress, since the subject is due process in all the cases and not limited to the numerically insignificant number that fit confession scenarios.

Boogie man
04-19-2010, 09:29 PM
The definition of what's the accepted litmus for 'plenty' would be awful subjective for such a justification.

Since the numbers of confessions I've seen are extremely low and compared to the interrogations so incredibly small as to make the definition 'plenty' rather weak.

But we digress, since the subject is due process in all the cases and not limited to the numerically insignificant number that fit confession scenarios.

I don't think the majority of the American people give a damn. Honestly.

PursuitOfHappinessParty
04-19-2010, 10:16 PM
I don't think the majority of the American people give a damn. Honestly.

You're probably right. Still, the issue goes beyond them as well as I see this as precedence setting actions that could quite easily be transfered to American soil and incorporate American people themselves. A shift in power, a crack to widen to exploitability against us in the future.

Boogie man
04-20-2010, 10:41 AM
You're probably right. Still, the issue goes beyond them as well as I see this as precedence setting actions that could quite easily be transfered to American soil and incorporate American people themselves. A shift in power, a crack to widen to exploitability against us in the future.

Nope, the issue does not go beyond them. The American people run this country. Remember? They are the moral authority.

PursuitOfHappinessParty
04-20-2010, 09:21 PM
Nope, the issue does not go beyond them. The American people run this country. Remember? They are the moral authority.

Keep telling yourself that. Between the polarization of politics in America giving incredibly small portions of the population the most power the people don't have near as much immediate control as they should have.

Then there's the fact that around half of the eligible voters don't vote and that means that even more don't than do citizen-wide that dilutes that power as well.

Like the cell phone tapping of just over a year or so ago.

Boogie man
04-20-2010, 09:39 PM
Keep telling yourself that. Between the polarization of politics in America giving incredibly small portions of the population the most power the people don't have near as much immediate control as they should have.

Then there's the fact that around half of the eligible voters don't vote and that means that even more don't than do citizen-wide that dilutes that power as well.

Like the cell phone tapping of just over a year or so ago.

You mean the cell phone tapping the Barky extended?

PursuitOfHappinessParty
04-20-2010, 11:09 PM
You mean the cell phone tapping the Barky extended?

Yep, amongst other instances. Every cell phone goes to land line and those land lines were tapped for keywords using very sophisticated software.

Spying on everyone, not just foreigners. Illegally.

So hows those American's that won't allow such things to happen here to us doing on that one? And you would allow that same government the ability to ignore due process under any circumstances?

Boogie man
04-21-2010, 11:02 AM
Yep, amongst other instances. Every cell phone goes to land line and those land lines were tapped for keywords using very sophisticated software.

Spying on everyone, not just foreigners. Illegally.

So hows those American's that won't allow such things to happen here to us doing on that one? And you would allow that same government the ability to ignore due process under any circumstances?

The job of my government is to protect me. The "rights" of some insane cult murderers who want to kill me and my family does not concern me. If someone wants to listen to my boring conversations about where to go fishing or what band is playing where and when, then have at it.

Linkster
04-21-2010, 01:16 PM
The job of my government is to protect me. The "rights" of some insane cult murderers who want to kill me and my family does not concern me. If someone wants to listen to my boring conversations about where to go fishing or what band is playing where and when, then have at it.

So you are against the Constitution and what it stands for - are you one of those commie terrorist leftists?

Boogie man
04-21-2010, 01:53 PM
So you are against the Constitution and what it stands for - are you one of those commie terrorist leftists?

No, I am not against the constitution. I'm all for it. ALL of it. Leftists are only for the part of the constitution that they like.

PursuitOfHappinessParty
04-22-2010, 09:52 AM
The job of my government is to protect me. The "rights" of some insane cult murderers who want to kill me and my family does not concern me. If someone wants to listen to my boring conversations about where to go fishing or what band is playing where and when, then have at it.

Yet here we are back at where we started.
You're talking about guilty 'cult murderers', yet that guilt is what the debate is about.

The people being denied due process are not convicted of having been anything. The vast majority have been found to be innocent. To allow torture or deny due process to these people whom are innocent is the problem with your position. You act upon a presumption of guilt, which is in opposition to everything America and our Constitution stands for.

However, I will remember your line 'The job of my government is to protect me' for later debates.:taunt:

PursuitOfHappinessParty
04-22-2010, 09:53 AM
No, I am not against the constitution. I'm all for it. ALL of it. Leftists are only for the part of the constitution that they like.

Because there is no evidence of Unilateralist Conservatives doing any such thing!!!:banghead:

Smurf-Herder
04-22-2010, 11:43 AM
Yep, amongst other instances. Every cell phone goes to land line and those land lines were tapped for keywords using very sophisticated software.

Spying on everyone, not just foreigners. Illegally.

So hows those American's that won't allow such things to happen here to us doing on that one? And you would allow that same government the ability to ignore due process under any circumstances?

Sounds like you're talking about Project Echelon. Started way back in the Cold War, with Australia, Britain and Canada. And made public during Clinton's term.

Boogie man
04-22-2010, 01:04 PM
Yet here we are back at where we started.
You're talking about guilty 'cult murderers', yet that guilt is what the debate is about.

The people being denied due process are not convicted of having been anything. The vast majority have been found to be innocent. To allow torture or deny due process to these people whom are innocent is the problem with your position. You act upon a presumption of guilt, which is in opposition to everything America and our Constitution stands for.

However, I will remember your line 'The job of my government is to protect me' for later debates.:taunt:

Oh for crying out loud, we are at war and terrorists are the enemy. We're not talking about back alley muggings here. Get real.

PursuitOfHappinessParty
04-23-2010, 09:44 AM
Oh for crying out loud, we are at war and terrorists are the enemy. We're not talking about back alley muggings here. Get real.

No its not an alley mugging. In an alley mugging I've got limited suspects and a higher chance at reliable witnesses.

In Afghanistan and Iraq I have large nations full of suspects. I have ex-enemies that we've bribed with money and weapons whom are positioning themselves for post-U.S. occupation power handing over their rivals and collecting said monies/weapons. These rivals can be true terrorists, insurgents, or just popular in the neighborhood and in the way of our 'new' 'friend' the ex-enemy. Plus we're getting 'suspects' from sweep and clears that net everyone in suspected locations.

Notice the rather lack of automatic proof in all this? Notice how, unlike your supposition, there is most likely an enormously high percentage of completely innocent people in these 'suspects'.
This is a classic example of why there actually is such a thing as due process. Once these people have been given due process and found guilty, then my gloves come off.

Until then, I'm intelligent enough to realize the diffence between suspected and confirmed. I'm intelligent enough to realize the danger in ignoring the difference between suspected and confirmed and the precedence set by doing so. I'm intelligent enough to realize that by treating an entire region as sub-human (by comparison to myself) is the best way to ensure the increase in insurgent numbers, much less terrorists.

Boogie man
04-23-2010, 11:07 AM
No its not an alley mugging. In an alley mugging I've got limited suspects and a higher chance at reliable witnesses.

In Afghanistan and Iraq I have large nations full of suspects. I have ex-enemies that we've bribed with money and weapons whom are positioning themselves for post-U.S. occupation power handing over their rivals and collecting said monies/weapons. These rivals can be true terrorists, insurgents, or just popular in the neighborhood and in the way of our 'new' 'friend' the ex-enemy. Plus we're getting 'suspects' from sweep and clears that net everyone in suspected locations.

Notice the rather lack of automatic proof in all this? Notice how, unlike your supposition, there is most likely an enormously high percentage of completely innocent people in these 'suspects'.
This is a classic example of why there actually is such a thing as due process. Once these people have been given due process and found guilty, then my gloves come off.

Until then, I'm intelligent enough to realize the diffence between suspected and confirmed. I'm intelligent enough to realize the danger in ignoring the difference between suspected and confirmed and the precedence set by doing so. I'm intelligent enough to realize that by treating an entire region as sub-human (by comparison to myself) is the best way to ensure the increase in insurgent numbers, much less terrorists.

LOL. It doesn't matter who is suspected or confirmed. It's no different than any other war when the enemy would hide among the citizens. I"m sure you're morally superior to all of us, but it just doesn't work in the real world.

Boogie man
04-23-2010, 08:01 PM
I had another thought today.

What do you do about those who are killed by US soldiers? They were denied their "due process"!

Tom Paine
04-23-2010, 09:00 PM
I had another thought today.

What do you do about those who are killed by US soldiers? They were denied their "due process"!

Cops call it suicide by state

Boogie man
04-23-2010, 09:02 PM
Cops call it suicide by state

That's a different thing.

We're talking about giving terrorists due process. How can a terrorist get due process if he has been killed?

Tom Paine
04-23-2010, 09:05 PM
That's a different thing.

We're talking about giving terrorists due process. How can a terrorist get due process if he has been killed?

He gave up that right when he committed suicide by getting shot by people other than him.

PursuitOfHappinessParty
04-23-2010, 09:20 PM
LOL. It doesn't matter who is suspected or confirmed. It's no different than any other war when the enemy would hide among the citizens. I"m sure you're morally superior to all of us, but it just doesn't work in the real world.

Two words: Nuhremberg Trials.

PursuitOfHappinessParty
04-23-2010, 09:24 PM
That's a different thing.

We're talking about giving terrorists due process. How can a terrorist get due process if he has been killed?

There's a difference between warfare itself and how you treat prisoners after the fact.

And since the overwhelming number of the suspects we're actually talking about are non-combatants handed over to us means your example is a strawman.

Boogie man
04-23-2010, 09:30 PM
Two words: Nuhremberg Trials.

I don't see the parallel. Explain it to me.

Boogie man
04-23-2010, 09:32 PM
There's a difference between warfare itself and how you treat prisoners after the fact.

And since the overwhelming number of the suspects we're actually talking about are non-combatants handed over to us means your example is a strawman.

Prisoners of war didn't get trials in any other war that I know of. Do you?

You just said that they are prisoners of war. If they are prisoners of war like you claim then let the military handle it.

PursuitOfHappinessParty
04-23-2010, 10:40 PM
Prisoners of war didn't get trials in any other war that I know of. Do you?

You just said that they are prisoners of war. If they are prisoners of war like you claim then let the military handle it.

I repeat then:

Two words: Nuhremberg Trials.

Look it up, google is at the top of the screen.....

Boogie man
04-24-2010, 11:05 AM
I repeat then:

Two words: Nuhremberg Trials.

Look it up, google is at the top of the screen.....

I have the documentary on the Nuremberg Trials, since I am a WWII history buff. Explain the similarity.

PursuitOfHappinessParty
04-24-2010, 09:01 PM
I have the documentary on the Nuremberg Trials, since I am a WWII history buff. Explain the similarity.

Then as a history buff you know the trials entailed military, political, and general crimes angainst humanity. These trials covered the holocaust, the war attrocities, as well as treatment of civilians and POWs by the military, police, political leaders, and related entities. Many of these people wore real uniforms, wore civilian clothes, wore ornamental uniforms and where captured in all manners of dress.

Boogie man
04-25-2010, 10:41 AM
Then as a history buff you know the trials entailed military, political, and general crimes angainst humanity. These trials covered the holocaust, the war attrocities, as well as treatment of civilians and POWs by the military, police, political leaders, and related entities. Many of these people wore real uniforms, wore civilian clothes, wore ornamental uniforms and where captured in all manners of dress.

Yes, but how does that translate to trials in the middle of NY City in civilian court? The Nuremberg trials were military tribunals.

Boogie man
04-26-2010, 10:38 AM
So what did you want to tell me about the Nuremberg trials and how that relates to civilian court trials for terrorists.

PursuitOfHappinessParty
04-29-2010, 12:34 PM
So what did you want to tell me about the Nuremberg trials and how that relates to civilian court trials for terrorists.

Simple.
The 12 Nuremberg Trials were conducted not by the US but internationally. These suspects, tho famous and had their criminality pretty much known for the most part, still received defense attorneys. They were allowed due process which if you scroll back to what I said, that's what I want for these suspects you continually address as if they're already found guilty.

Now, if Goering had been unknown to his jailers, turned over to his jailers by ex-Nazis looking for post-American presence power, turned over to his jailers for money and weapons, and denied legal representation while being vigorously interrogated at best, tortured at worst,tried by an exclusively American Tribunal, then you'd have a point.

Nice try, tho.

Boogie man
04-29-2010, 02:21 PM
Simple.
The 12 Nuremberg Trials were conducted not by the US but internationally. These suspects, tho famous and had their criminality pretty much known for the most part, still received defense attorneys. They were allowed due process which if you scroll back to what I said, that's what I want for these suspects you continually address as if they're already found guilty.

Now, if Goering had been unknown to his jailers, turned over to his jailers by ex-Nazis looking for post-American presence power, turned over to his jailers for money and weapons, and denied legal representation while being vigorously interrogated at best, tortured at worst,tried by an exclusively American Tribunal, then you'd have a point.

Nice try, tho.

They were allowed due process in a military tribunal. This was not a civilian court. I don't care if they get attorneys in a military tribunal. What the American people care about is the circus of having a civilian trial in NYC.

Nice try, tho.

PursuitOfHappinessParty
04-29-2010, 02:54 PM
They were allowed due process in a military tribunal. This was not a civilian court. I don't care if they get attorneys in a military tribunal. What the American people care about is the circus of having a civilian trial in NYC.

Nice try, tho.

So then it must be reading comprehension problems for you. Odd this new tact considering we never discussed the trial location nor trial type. We were discussing, and you wrote your non-support, of due process.

Since you've come 180 degrees in your position, I guess it really WAS a nice try.

BTW, due process works in Nuremberg, NYC, or Anywhere's Arabia so I don't see any benefit of bringing the trial here. The vast majority have been found innocent or not even eventually charged so far so it'll be less far to get them back home.

Boogie man
04-29-2010, 04:16 PM
So then it must be reading comprehension problems for you. Odd this new tact considering we never discussed the trial location nor trial type. We were discussing, and you wrote your non-support, of due process.

Since you've come 180 degrees in your position, I guess it really WAS a nice try.

BTW, due process works in Nuremberg, NYC, or Anywhere's Arabia so I don't see any benefit of bringing the trial here. The vast majority have been found innocent or not even eventually charged so far so it'll be less far to get them back home.

The "due process" in a military tribunal is not the same "due process" that an American citizen receives in the USA, which is what you and your liberal pals are for.

The American people don't care about your so-called "vast majority". The American people want war criminals treated as such.

You keep trying to justify your appeasement.

The fact is you used Nuremberg to justify your point and you were wrong. A military tribunal is not the same as a trial in American civilian court. You fucked up. Keep trying.

PursuitOfHappinessParty
04-29-2010, 07:57 PM
The "due process" in a military tribunal is not the same "due process" that an American citizen receives in the USA, which is what you and your liberal pals are for.

The American people don't care about your so-called "vast majority". The American people want war criminals treated as such.

You keep trying to justify your appeasement.

The fact is you used Nuremberg to justify your point and you were wrong. A military tribunal is not the same as a trial in American civilian court. You fucked up. Keep trying.

Another useless post by you, how underwhelming. You're backing up from your 'NO DUE PROCESS' stance faster than a French Tank in WWII.

Wow, the inevitable 'Lib' slam - how....boring.

Polls don't agree with you, but that won't cause you any grief. Facts just ain't your thing.
Your thing is hate. These vast majority you speak of are only guilty of being non-Americans and being non-white so f' em let's lock-em all up and deny them due process.

So being a taxi cab driver in Iraq is equatable to being a war criminal now? Wow. Stay the fuck out of any court case I'm ever involved in.

Once again, show me where I said military tribunals were EXACTLY the same as American Judicial courts. In the words of Mike Singletary "Can't Do It".
Not so nice try to redefine the debate in your, ...ahem..., favor but that won't fly. Maybe on Sesame Street's site, give it a whirl.

I also suggest you look-up terrorist and insurgent, you and your ilk keep getting them confused. Kinda like y'all do your countries.

Also, due process involves more than the trial or tribunal itself, see Extraneous Rendition as well as the end-game product of secret EU prisons, transfers to Arabic countries that are known to torture suspects, as well as the treatment of same in our own detention centers.

Then tell me again how I'm not supposed to care that the vast majority of these people are innocent. Torture begets you bad intel, hence our lack of successes in terrorist and insurgent location as well as a pitiful conviction number.

Boogie man
04-29-2010, 08:12 PM
Another useless post by you, how underwhelming. You're backing up from your 'NO DUE PROCESS' stance faster than a French Tank in WWII.

Wow, the inevitable 'Lib' slam - how....boring.

Polls don't agree with you, but that won't cause you any grief. Facts just ain't your thing.
Your thing is hate. These vast majority you speak of are only guilty of being non-Americans and being non-white so f' em let's lock-em all up and deny them due process.

So being a taxi cab driver in Iraq is equatable to being a war criminal now? Wow. Stay the fuck out of any court case I'm ever involved in.

Once again, show me where I said military tribunals were EXACTLY the same as American Judicial courts. In the words of Mike Singletary "Can't Do It".
Not so nice try to redefine the debate in your, ...ahem..., favor but that won't fly. Maybe on Sesame Street's site, give it a whirl.

I also suggest you look-up terrorist and insurgent, you and your ilk keep getting them confused. Kinda like y'all do your countries.

Also, due process involves more than the trial or tribunal itself, see Extraneous Rendition as well as the end-game product of secret EU prisons, transfers to Arabic countries that are known to torture suspects, as well as the treatment of same in our own detention centers.

Then tell me again how I'm not supposed to care that the vast majority of these people are innocent. Torture begets you bad intel, hence our lack of successes in terrorist and insurgent location as well as a pitiful conviction number.

LOL. Here comes the "hate" card. Why don't you call me a bigot and a warmonger and a homophobe while you're at it. This is what losers do when they hit the brick wall of truth, call names and marginalize.

Prove me wrong. Prove the overwhelming majority of the American people agree with you.

Torture? Waterboarding is not torture in the minds of the majority of the American people.

Here is your problem, you, just like your president and your congress, do not agree with the majority of the American people.

I don't care if you care about what you call innocent people. Not as long as you don't forget that the American people are at war, whose protection and safety should be your first priority. The American people are the "innocent" people I care about FIRST.

PursuitOfHappinessParty
04-29-2010, 08:46 PM
LOL. Here comes the "hate" card. Why don't you call me a bigot and a warmonger and a homophobe while you're at it. This is what losers do when they hit the brick wall of truth, call names and marginalize.

Prove me wrong. Prove the overwhelming majority of the American people agree with you.

Torture? Waterboarding is not torture in the minds of the majority of the American people.

Here is your problem, you, just like your president and your congress, do not agree with the majority of the American people.

I don't care if you care about what you call innocent people. Not as long as you don't forget that the American people are at war, whose protection and safety should be your first priority. The American people are the "innocent" people I care about FIRST.

Play the hate card? Hardly. Your hate drips from almost every post and your history is well known to all here so I don't actually have to justify didley.

Call you those other things? I will when they are apropro, like I have in the past.


Tell you what, sport. YOU go find those polls proving otherwise because quite simply you're not worth the effort. I'll rebuke with same, tho since facts ain't your thing I won't be refuting anything, will I?

Boogie man
04-29-2010, 08:54 PM
Play the hate card? Hardly. Your hate drips from almost every post and your history is well known to all here so I don't actually have to justify didley.

Call you those other things? I will when they are apropro, like I have in the past.


Tell you what, sport. YOU go find those polls proving otherwise because quite simply you're not worth the effort. I'll rebuke with same, tho since facts ain't your thing I won't be refuting anything, will I?

Oh my, for sure, for sure.

Of course I'm not worth the effort. The facts and the truth don't matter to you. All that matters is your agenda. You don't care about your fellow Americans. What you care about is making sure war criminals have the same rights as American citizens. That is what has been proved here.

I tell you what, skippy. Why don't you document some of my "hate" so we can see your case for my "hate".

PursuitOfHappinessParty
05-05-2010, 08:30 PM
Oh my, for sure, for sure.

Of course I'm not worth the effort. The facts and the truth don't matter to you. All that matters is your agenda. You don't care about your fellow Americans. What you care about is making sure war criminals have the same rights as American citizens. That is what has been proved here.

I tell you what, skippy. Why don't you document some of my "hate" so we can see your case for my "hate".

So that would be a no, 'Can't do it, POHP' then.

MarkMiller
05-05-2010, 08:33 PM
The question is, were these lawyers ordered to represent the terrorists, or did they volunteer?

Being ordered to defend them is doing their job, but volunteering means you have to have a soft spot in your heart for these animals. That's how I see it.
Yeah....that's outright stupid, but you are consistant.

Boogie man
05-05-2010, 09:14 PM
So that would be a no, 'Can't do it, POHP' then.

The poll that counts is the one in November. Let's see what you have to say the day after election day.

PursuitOfHappinessParty
05-06-2010, 09:23 PM
The poll that counts is the one in November. Let's see what you have to say the day after election day.

Uhm...okay?
Not sure what you're trying to insinuate, so I'll leave it at that.

BTW, since I vote Independent (tho I voted for Obama this previous election which is what voting Independent means- no party voting) I rarely get to say much after election day as far as success. This next cycle, like last cycle, Nader is too old and its too early to make blanket statements or predictions on whom I'll vote for nor is it really responsible to try to pretend being able to portend the final vote.