Job Freakin well done Obama DOJ. Civilian trials for these pieces of sh!t was genius.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/17/gitmo-detainee-ahmed-ghailani-guilty-terrorism-charges/
Kill hundreds of people...not guilty
Take a kid through security at an airport...get sexually assaulted.
Edited: Here are our geniuses saying they are "pleased" with the outcome:
QuoteDOJ says it's "pleased" Ahmed Ghailani facing min. of 20 years in prison + potential life sentence" for role in the embassy bombings
http://twitter.com/jaketapper/statuses/5042587828232192
This REALLY pisses me off. 12 Americans were killed in those terrorist bombings.
Quote from: guido911 on November 17, 2010, 05:41:56 PM
Job Freakin well done Obama DOJ. Civilian trials for these pieces of sh!t was genius.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/17/gitmo-detainee-ahmed-ghailani-guilty-terrorism-charges/
Kill hundreds of people...not guilty
Take a kid through security at an airport...get sexually assaulted.
Edited: Here are our geniuses saying they are "pleased" with the outcome:
http://twitter.com/jaketapper/statuses/5042587828232192
This REALLY pisses me off. 12 Americans were killed in those terrorist bombings.
After becoming informed of what happened with this, it's being suggested that a military tribunal would also have thrown out the evidence that excluded the remainder of the counts.
Would you have been as pissed off then, oh Tony? Well, would you?
Continue with the hand-wringing.
Gee...maybe next time there is a Bush in the White House, torture and rendition and contaminating evidence won't happen and they can get 12 people to agree on something. Would really love to read the transcript of that trial. I bet what the government had to work with was typical of Bush injustice department.
We should never elect another Bush if for no other reason than to increase the chances of a legitimate government conviction without all the contamination!
Having said all that, you gotta wonder why he was taken prisoner in the first place? Somewhere along the line, someone very likely had him legitimately in the sights of an M-16 and said, "Naw...we'll take him along to torture, then try him in an American court..." Why not just pull the trigger?
20 minimum to life.....Maybe they will get him in prison.....
Quote from: Breadburner on November 19, 2010, 07:46:39 AM
20 minimum to life.....Maybe they will get him in prison.....
Nah! He'll probably show up on The View to share his tragic experiences, and tell the story of his mistreatment at the hands of the evil Americans. Then Whoopie and Joy Bayhar will lean in, and they will all scream "Death to America" and engage in a group hug.
Next stop The Daily Show, and the MSNBC circus.
Guido, it's all about what you can prove in court. At least they got him on one count. I don't want to live in a country where we decide it's OK to toss some people in jail without trial or with a lessened standard of evidence. Next thing you know, they could be using that lower standard for other crimes.
Quote from: nathanm on November 19, 2010, 08:32:45 AM
Guido, it's all about what you can prove in court. At least they got him on one count. I don't want to live in a country where we decide it's OK to toss some people in jail without trial or with a lessened standard of evidence. Next thing you know, they could be using that lower standard for other crimes.
So this terrorist is now in the "some people" category. Good to know.
Quote from: guido911 on November 19, 2010, 08:38:50 AM
So this terrorist is now in the "some people" category. Good to know.
You're assuming that it will stop there. That next we won't decide that suspected murderers deserve the same treatment. That after that, we won't decide that suspected child molesters deserve the same treatment, and so on down the line. I don't have the faith necessary to believe that in time, the standard of evidence will not be lowered for all crime.
Quote from: nathanm on November 19, 2010, 08:42:03 AM
You're assuming that it will stop there. That next we won't decide that suspected murderers deserve the same treatment. That after that, we won't decide that suspected child molesters deserve the same treatment, and so on down the line. I don't have the faith necessary to believe that in time, the standard of evidence will not be lowered for all crime.
What's that called?
Oh yeah...a police state.
I remember this quote:
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"..
Benjamin Franklin.
Hey, wasn't he one of those 'founder' guys?
:o
Quote from: nathanm on November 19, 2010, 08:42:03 AM
You're assuming that it will stop there. That next we won't decide that suspected murderers deserve the same treatment. That after that, we won't decide that suspected child molesters deserve the same treatment, and so on down the line. I don't have the faith necessary to believe that in time, the standard of evidence will not be lowered for all crime.
I just love how folks with ZERO, much less formal, legal training and experience lecture me on what the law is. Seriously, people (I call them "Cliff Clavins") read a news article or listen to some talking head and suddenly they are authorities on the subject. It's like "Guido, Jeffrey Toobin said this or that about the verdict so it must be true". It's so damned hilarious.
Quote from: guido911 on November 19, 2010, 09:22:19 AM
I just love how folks with ZERO, much less formal, legal training and experience lecture me on what the law is. Seriously, people (I call them "Cliff Clavins") read a news article or listen to some talking head and suddenly they are authorities on the subject. It's like "Guido, Jeffrey Toobin said this or that about the verdict so it must be true". It's so damned hilarious.
So that's why you posted this? So you could act uppity and self-righteous again?
As an officer of the court aren't you supposed to have the most respect for the law?
Quote from: guido911 on November 19, 2010, 09:22:19 AM
I just love how folks with ZERO, much less formal, legal training and experience lecture me on what the law is.
Hey! I own both Legally Blonde AND Legally Blonde 2 movies.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 19, 2010, 09:31:22 AM
Hey! I own both Legally Blonde AND Legally Blonde 2 movies.
I slept in a Holiday Inn last night.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 19, 2010, 09:31:22 AM
Hey! I own both Legally Blonde AND Legally Blonde 2 movies.
Well then let's have a debate. Now, if you would have watched "The Paper Chase" and/or "My Cousin Vinny", then we could really have a discussion.
Quote from: guido911 on November 19, 2010, 09:34:21 AM
Well then let's have a debate. Now, if you would have watched "The Paper Chase" and/or "My Cousin Vinny", then we could really have a discussion.
Both much better movies.
Quotea representation (as of a story) by means of motion pictures : movie
Merriam-Webster
Quote from: Townsend on November 19, 2010, 09:35:13 AM
Both much better movies.
Merriam-Webster
Agreed. I watched
Wall Street a few weeks back and an episode of
House on an airplane. I guess that allows me to lecture you bankers/investors and doctors about your job field. :)
I have in-laws who are out-laws. Don't lecture me on the law.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 19, 2010, 09:40:17 AM
I have in-laws who are out-laws. Don't lecture me on the law.
You sir are on fire today. +1
Quote from: guido911 on November 19, 2010, 09:22:19 AM
I just love how folks with ZERO, much less formal, legal training and experience lecture me on what the law is. Seriously, people (I call them "Cliff Clavins") read a news article or listen to some talking head and suddenly they are authorities on the subject. It's like "Guido, Jeffrey Toobin said this or that about the verdict so it must be true". It's so damned hilarious.
I find it difficult to understand how you got "nathanm is telling me what the law is" out of my post. Perhaps you could explain?
Quote from: nathanm on November 19, 2010, 10:51:56 AM
I find it difficult to understand how you got "nathanm is telling me what the law is" out of my post. Perhaps you could explain?
Oh I don't know, perhaps it was this:
QuoteGuido, it's all about what you can prove in court. At least they got him on one count. I don't want to live in a country where we decide it's OK to toss some people in jail without trial or with a lessened standard of evidence. Next thing you know, they could be using that lower standard for other crimes.
Do you have short term memory issues? I say that because I saw someone with that medical condition on
Doogie Houser.
Quote from: guido911 on November 19, 2010, 11:05:27 AM
Oh I don't know, perhaps it was this:
Do you have short term memory issues? I say that because I saw someone with that medical condition on Doogie Houser.
Haha, that's funny.
Quote from: guido911 on November 19, 2010, 09:22:19 AM
I just love how folks with ZERO, much less formal, legal training and experience lecture me on what the law is. Seriously, people (I call them "Cliff Clavins") read a news article or listen to some talking head and suddenly they are authorities on the subject. It's like "Guido, Jeffrey Toobin said this or that about the verdict so it must be true". It's so damned hilarious.
So let me get this straight, in order to understand things like innocent until proven guilty, nor the whole "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" thing unless they have formal training? Or to realize that a slippery slope exists? Or are you saying it's not about what you can prove in court? Please, get over yourself.
It's not a very surprising outcome. For years during the Bush Administration (well before Obama came along), lots of reasonable folks (lawyers and such!) were protesting the use of torture and/or coercion because it effectively taints any evidence that might be used at trial. This is true in trials that don't involve terrorists at all; a goodly lot of Chicago cops, for instance, went up the river for torturing suspects, and afterward a raft of convictions were tossed out because of tainted confessions. You don't have to be a lawyer to read about and understand why that might be true.
Quote from: we vs us on November 19, 2010, 03:51:49 PM
It's not a very surprising outcome. For years during the Bush Administration (well before Obama came along), lots of reasonable folks (lawyers and such!) were protesting the use of torture and/or coercion because it effectively taints any evidence that might be used at trial. This is true in trials that don't involve terrorists at all; a goodly lot of Chicago cops, for instance, went up the river for torturing suspects, and afterward a raft of convictions were tossed out because of tainted confessions. You don't have to be a lawyer to read about and understand why that might be true.
Certainly you can't be suggesting this has only been an issue during the Bush years. Rendition and torture has gone on as long as there's been law enforcement and warfare.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 19, 2010, 04:12:14 PM
Certainly you can't be suggesting this has only been an issue during the Bush years. Rendition and torture has gone on as long as there's been law enforcement and warfare.
Yes, but the major difference was that Bush II made it an official instrument of policy. Up till now we may have nodded and whispered about what the CIA did in Nicaragua (for instance) but Bush made it part of the legal framework of the war on terror. That was absolutely new and different from an historical perspective.
My point was that people with actual law degrees were objecting to it years ago, on the grounds that it would produce exactly the kind of result we just saw. It shouldn't be surprising to anyone -- Guido included -- that we're seeing so many counts tossed out because of tainted evidence. The Bush II legal framework practically guaranteed it.
Quote from: custosnox on November 19, 2010, 03:15:45 PM
So let me get this straight, in order to understand things like innocent until proven guilty, nor the whole "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" thing unless they have formal training? Or to realize that a slippery slope exists? Or are you saying it's not about what you can prove in court? Please, get over yourself.
In my business I use a research product called Westlaw (it's a little similar to Lexis-Nexus). The "Notes of Decisions", which provides a brief synopsis of a specific legal concept just for the Fourteenth Amendment "due process" clause contains more than 10,000 case citations and countless cross references interpreting: its meaning, its application, who is affected, and etc. Words have meaning, but not the same meaning in different contexts--and I have on numerous occasions knocked out know-it-all
pro se plaintiffs and their bs cases because they thought they knew what due process means.
So, yes, to understand what "due process of law", and those other technical and complex legal terms of art, means you need formal education. Otherwise, its nice that you know the words and those rights exist, but do not tell me you "understand it". Hell, I do not fully understand it. Most certainly, lay persons telling me that "it's all about what you can prove in court" is stupid and insulting.
And Clavin, you get over it.
Quote from: guido911 on November 19, 2010, 11:05:27 AM
Do you have short term memory issues? I say that because I saw someone with that medical condition on Doogie Houser.
Mmmhmm. So people are convicted on the basis of things not proven in court? (leaving out plea bargains, of course, which by their very nature short circuit that) Speaking of which, I don't recall specifics, but some years back didn't the Supreme Court hear a case regarding sentencing enhancements for things not proven in court? I forget how they ruled, but that might be another exception to the general rule I was speaking of that got you upset, seemingly far out of proportion to my statement.
You're the one who seemed to think that it was some sort of travesty that the guy only got convicted on one count. We all are sometimes in need of a reminder of the guiding principles of our criminal justice system. Usually when we feel like justice wasn't really done.
P.S. I have also used WestLaw. At the time, I thought it was a lot more user-friendly for us laypeople than Lexis, but that's been 10 years ago now.
Quote from: nathanm on November 19, 2010, 07:09:12 PM
Mmmhmm. So people are convicted on the basis of things not proven in court? (leaving out plea bargains, of course, which by their very nature short circuit that) Speaking of which, I don't recall specifics, but some years back didn't the Supreme Court hear a case regarding sentencing enhancements for things not proven in court? I forget how they ruled, but that might be another exception to the general rule I was speaking of that got you upset, seemingly far out of proportion to my statement.
You're the one who seemed to think that it was some sort of travesty that the guy only got convicted on one count. We all are sometimes in need of a reminder of the guiding principles of our criminal justice system. Usually when we feel like justice wasn't really done.
P.S. I have also used WestLaw. At the time, I thought it was a lot more user-friendly for us laypeople than Lexis, but that's been 10 years ago now.
First, this guy was charged with 285 felony counts involving the murder of nearly 225 people (including 12 Americans) and the best we can get from our "failure is not an option" Holder DOJ is one conspiracy conviction. Damned right its a freakin travesty.
Second, tell me again why these bastards caught in battle in other countries have any business in our federal courts? In case you didn't get the memo, we are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan and many of these f*ckstains were taken prisoner over there. Giving them a trial with the same rights as you are I get is incredulous. Oh, and don't give me the "we are a sophisticated, not uncivilized, country" and "we need to show the world" crap. This is really about Obama's administration complete misunderstanding of how to engage our enemies.
Third, the majority of the spooners running to Obama's defense on this matter, those that share the DOJ's "pleased" position, focus on the exclusion of one witness at the trial. What people forget is that this prick confessed to his role in the bombings.
QuoteAhmed Ghailani has confessed to bombing the U.S. embassy in Tanzania twelve years ago. As he explained to the FBI in a series of 2007 interviews, he bought the TNT used in the explosion. He even identified the man from whom he purchased it — a man who was subsequently located, who corroborated Ghailani's confession, and who has been cooperating with American and Tanzanian authorities ever since. Ghailani also helped buy the truck and other components used to carry out the suicide attack.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/248886/embassy-bombing-trial-jeopardy-andrew-c-mccarthy
Of course, his confession was never presented to the jury:
QuoteThe jury won't be hearing about Ghailani's confession. It has been reported that, because he was a highly sought and highly placed al-Qaeda operative, Ghailani was subjected to harsh interrogation tactics by the CIA after being captured in Pakistan in 2004. To be sure, no jury should be permitted to hear a coerced confession. That is not because an alien terrorist held outside the U.S. in wartime has Fifth Amendment rights; it is because a proceeding in which a person is forced to be a witness against himself does not meet rudimentary standards of justice. Nevertheless, we are not referring here to what Ghailani may have told the CIA under duress; we are talking about the confession he gave the FBI three years later. The FBI does not use the CIA's controversial tactics.[/quote] Emphasis added
Still want to talk about justice? I think we should be talking about the DOJ and Holder's incompetence. BTW, has anyone seen this guy lately?
Quote from: guido911 on November 19, 2010, 06:54:05 PM
In my business I use a research product called Westlaw (it's a little similar to Lexis-Nexus). The "Notes of Decisions", which provides a brief synopsis of a specific legal concept just for the Fourteenth Amendment "due process" clause contains more than 10,000 case citations and countless cross references interpreting: its meaning, its application, who is affected, and etc. Words have meaning, but not the same meaning in different contexts--and I have on numerous occasions knocked out know-it-all pro se plaintiffs and their bs cases because they thought they knew what due process means.
So, yes, to understand what "due process of law", and those other technical and complex legal terms of art, means you need formal education. Otherwise, its nice that you know the words and those rights exist, but do not tell me you "understand it". Hell, I do not fully understand it. Most certainly, lay persons telling me that "it's all about what you can prove in court" is stupid and insulting.
And Clavin, you get over it.
kinda funny, I've taken on an educated attorney as a
pro se or two in my time and did a pretty handy job agains them, so I guess it's really more about who is doing the fight then. So you can keep toutin your holier than thou horn, but it plays a little off key. Besides all of that, even though the terms have been murkied in court over time does not mean that the basic idea behind them changes, and that idea is that all shall be tried according the the law regardless of race, creed or religion. This idea does not sway to fit the desire of the moment simply because people want it to. It is a shame that people such as yourself have fought so hard to crate such a catastrophe of the courts that you have to spend so many years in school just to run around in circles to avoid the idea.
Also, you never answered my question, are you saying it's not about what you can prove in the court of law.
And a quick sidenote, I argue the point on proposition that as a nation we have duty to ourselves to hold true to these ideas. But I do not agree that foriegn prisoners of war should neccessarily be given the same rights and freedoms as US citizens.
Quote from: custosnox on November 19, 2010, 08:02:18 PM
Also, you never answered my question, are you saying it's not about what you can prove in the court of law.
I didn't think you seriously wanted me to answer such a condescending and inane question. Speaking as someone that has tried numerous cases to state and federal juries, it's not just about what you can prove. There are so many tangential factors beyond the evidence that could influence a verdict. Anything from the defendant's personal likability, the skill of the lawyers, errant evidentiary rulings, trial strategy (look at my link to my recent response to Nate on this point) and on and on and on.
Quote from: guido911 on November 19, 2010, 07:56:33 PM
This is really about Obama's administration complete misunderstanding of how to engage our enemies.
Well, Obama, Clinton, Bush the Elder, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and Nixon's misunderstanding (at the least). Terrorists have been treated as "regular joe" criminals under all of those Presidents, at least when it's been more convenient than a one off retaliation bombing. Bush the Junior was an outlier here.
Quote from: guido911 on November 19, 2010, 08:15:25 PM
I didn't think you seriously wanted me to answer such a condescending and inane question. Speaking as someone that has tried numerous cases to state and federal juries, it's not just about what you can prove. There are so many tangential factors beyond the evidence that could influence a verdict. Anything from the defendant's personal likability, the skill of the lawyers, errant evidentiary rulings, trial strategy (look at my link to my recent response to Nate on this point) and on and on and on.
I think you missed the
in court part of my statement. To prove something in court requires admissible evidence. Obviously, jurors can do whatever they like regardless of the evidence, given that they have the power to render a verdict however they like, so long as the conviction can be sustained given the facts alleged as a matter of law. (or at least that's my understanding, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)
Guido,
You do realize that the American Bar Association voted "My Cousin Vinny" the #3 best legal movie of all time. Right up there with "To Kill a Mockingbird". And "12 Angry Men".
But then, the ABA is just a bunch of lawyers, and you know how they are....
Trying cases in Federal court - one would then reasonably, I think, presume some familiarity with Federal law as relate to treaties. Where the treaties we have signed, which are, by definition the "supreme law" of the land, along with the Constitution and CFR, et. al. would enter into the treatment of prisoners. And no, there really IS no such thing as an "enemy combatant" under US law. And you know it.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 22, 2010, 09:39:19 PM
Guido,
You do realize that the American Bar Association voted "My Cousin Vinny" the #3 best legal movie of all time. Right up there with "To Kill a Mockingbird". And "12 Angry Men".
But then, the ABA is just a bunch of lawyers, and you know how they are....
Trying cases in Federal court - one would then reasonably, I think, presume some familiarity with Federal law as relate to treaties. Where the treaties we have signed, which are, by definition the "supreme law" of the land, along with the Constitution and CFR, et. al. would enter into the treatment of prisoners. And no, there really IS no such thing as an "enemy combatant" under US law. And you know it.
CFR is the "code of federal regulations, which is essentially rules/regs promulgated by federal agencies. I think you meant the United States Code. As for there being no such thing as"enemy combatants" under US law, here ya go:
QuoteEnemy Combatant
An "enemy combatant" is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): "Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war."
"Enemy combatant" is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).
The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President's determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatants.html
As for the ABA, I quit that group 11 years ago.
That is all just Bushyism jingoism, dogma, and "purchase the ruling you want from the court you own".
Here is the actual Third Geneva Convention.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument
One note in particular is interesting. If it is undefined - the current legal state of "enemy combatants" - Art 5 would seem to apply, don't you think? Granted, that would be rather inconvenient due to the fact that every time a "competent tribunal" rules, the Murdochian Revisionists scream and cry and whine and moan and groan. And probably wet themselves just a little bit....
Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
Art 3.1.c would also seem to be of some interest, since that determination remains to be made. But, hey, "When the President does it, then it's not illegal", right?? (Richard Nixon to David Frost) Google the phrase for film clip.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 23, 2010, 08:36:15 PM
That is all just Bushyism jingoism, dogma, and "purchase the ruling you want from the court you own".
Here is the actual Third Geneva Convention.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument
One note in particular is interesting. If it is undefined - the current legal state of "enemy combatants" - Art 5 would seem to apply, don't you think? Granted, that would be rather inconvenient due to the fact that every time a "competent tribunal" rules, the Murdochian Revisionists scream and cry and whine and moan and groan. And probably wet themselves just a little bit....
Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
Art 3.1.c would also seem to be of some interest, since that determination remains to be made. But, hey, "When the President does it, then it's not illegal", right?? (Richard Nixon to David Frost) Google the phrase for film clip.
If you want me to take you seriously stop with the stupid.
I'm with stupid.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 23, 2010, 08:36:15 PM
That is all just Bushyism jingoism, dogma, and "purchase the ruling you want from the court you own".
Here is the actual Third Geneva Convention.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument
One note in particular is interesting. If it is undefined - the current legal state of "enemy combatants" - Art 5 would seem to apply, don't you think? Granted, that would be rather inconvenient due to the fact that every time a "competent tribunal" rules, the Murdochian Revisionists scream and cry and whine and moan and groan. And probably wet themselves just a little bit....
Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
Art 3.1.c would also seem to be of some interest, since that determination remains to be made. But, hey, "When the President does it, then it's not illegal", right?? (Richard Nixon to David Frost) Google the phrase for film clip.
Knock off the obsession with Murdoch and RWRE. It's becoming apparent you have nothing intelligent to say. Frame it in a logical discussion and more people would be willing to engage you.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 24, 2010, 09:05:20 AM
Knock off the obsession with Murdoch and RWRE. It's becoming apparent you have nothing intelligent to say. Frame it in a logical discussion and more people would be willing to engage you.
He's becoming more familiar every day.
Exactly. When you cannot address a point, pull out the insults.
No logical discussion about the actual Geneva convention YOU trotted out - albeit heavily influenced by revisionist editors. I gave a link to the actual document. Presumably the literate amongst us will be able to read what the revisionists were talking about. Oh, wait - no they can't because it isn't in there!
I have zero - no, less than zero - concern about people "engaging me". My main goal is to try to put a little reality out here so we are not just awash in the "whatever-you-want-to-call-it-since-using-the-Murdoch-term-seems-to-hit-such-a-sensitive-nerve-that-it-drives-one-to-insults-rather-than-EVER-answering-a-question-or-addressing-a-point".
Maybe I could start responding in kind? Insults instead of commentary. Naw,...it's more fun to put up some reality.
Red,
And that would be a shame - if reality would rub off on more people! Tragic!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 24, 2010, 01:02:09 PM
Red,
And that would be a shame - if reality would rub off on more people! Tragic!
Your reality, yes, tragic.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 24, 2010, 12:59:11 PM
Exactly. When you cannot address a point, pull out the insults.
No logical discussion about the actual Geneva convention YOU trotted out - albeit heavily influenced by revisionist editors. I gave a link to the actual document. Presumably the literate amongst us will be able to read what the revisionists were talking about. Oh, wait - no they can't because it isn't in there!
I have zero - no, less than zero - concern about people "engaging me". My main goal is to try to put a little reality out here so we are not just awash in the "whatever-you-want-to-call-it-since-using-the-Murdoch-term-seems-to-hit-such-a-sensitive-nerve-that-it-drives-one-to-insults-rather-than-EVER-answering-a-question-or-addressing-a-point".
Maybe I could start responding in kind? Insults instead of commentary. Naw,...it's more fun to put up some reality.
I never brought up the Geneva Convention, you've got me confused with someone else. You make no arguments other than Rupert Murdoch, Bushie, and the RWRE are the root of all that is bad. It's an old act, try something new for a change instead of sounding like a complete dipshit every time you write a post.
Conan, I can see how you would be confused by that last post. The second part of it was addressing your comment about people engaging. Will try to remember to put salutations as appropriate.
The first part was to Guido's comments about the group in his post about how torture is considered not only legal now, but a valuable tool of foreign policy.
Responding in kind with insults - anyone who wants to take it to heart.
As far as 'root of all bad', well it's kind of a triage thing. When someone is bleeding out through a severed artery, that is the point to concentrate treatment. So when the RWRE is the leading cause of "arterial bleeding" in our little corner of the world, that is what gets the most attention. (Going from 900 billion in debt to 13 trillion is hemorrhaging! And it is continuing at breakneck speed!)
Other topics that would bubble up to the surface if the RWRE lies and corruption in recent years was not so over overwhelming;
Balanced budget amendment - we need one! Why didn't we already get one?
Gun control - I honestly thought this would be a huge problem the last two years. And it isn't yet. But true patriots and good citizens would still be joining the NRA. Lifetime membership, preferably.
Infrastructure. Geez, what a mess! Hey, how about instead of killing our kids in Iraq, and squandering those wasted trillions, maybe we put a few hundred billion into fixing EVERYTHING in this country!! The highways. Sewer treatment facilities. Fresh water treatment facilities. Energy investments ( no, not just "drill, drill, drill".)
Take a few of the billions thrown at the nuclear industry and divert it to fusion research/development. We have been hearing how it "isn't ready" yet for about 50 years. Well, it takes a REAL effort to make it ready. And uranium is on the way out due to a variety of reasons beyond the obvious problem of disposal - in fact, that is the least valid reason to get rid of fission. (And safety is no issue at all.)
And how about a true effort to get closer to Canada and Mexico. Maybe even with the final result of joining them as additional states. It can only help. (I know, not my idea, but a good one - even promoted by Reagan.)
And get rid of the Oklahoma County Commission system for county administration. Surely there is a method that could have enough "checks and balances" to eliminate some of the problems that run rampant. (This will probably create me more enemies in the state than anything I have ever said before!!)
And get rid of the tax deduction for mortgage interest. Why should about 60 to 65% of us be required to subsidize the richest 35% (ones that can afford a house and mortgage). Oh, wait, I forgot - that is the way we do it in this country. On a much bigger scale with "less than 1/2 price" tax rates for the top 1%. Sorry, scratch that...
And get rid of those porn picture scanners in the airports. If we are having THAT much trouble figuring out airplane security, let's go talk to the Israeli's. They had it figured out over 30 years ago. We don't need all that BS.
And education. Well, we can't have that here in Okra-homa can we? How about putting some real brain power into figuring out how to improve our 25-30% high school dropout rate?
And we absolutely know beyond ANY doubt or possibility of valid debate that investment in higher education returns orders of magnitude bigger returns on investment than just about any other investment the state can make. Plus the attraction of a highly trained population with low cost of living to just about ANY industry that currently exists, but isn't here. Bigger subsidies, up to and including free tuition and books to citizens who end up staying and working in the state. This could be in the form of forgiveness of student loans over a period of time. Stop the idiocy about worrying about attracting companies until there is infrastructure to support it. (Kind of a "build it and they will come" approach. And they will. Can you spell "Texas"?)
And a FULL state university in Tulsa. (LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, etc, etc. I know, I know...I crack myself up, sometimes!)
Bite the bullet and get rid of the turnpike corruption. How about just one tiny glimmer of honesty in state government??
And last, but not least, can't we do SOMETHING to get Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan OUT of the public eye??? Please, God, make it stop!!!!
Is this off topic??
Is it still raining?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 30, 2010, 12:57:33 AM
*sniff**sniff* did someone fart?
I did. According to Tony, that would be my coherent thought for the month.
;D
Military tribunals at Gitmo set to resume.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/07/obama-resume-military-trials-guantanamo-source-says/
I thought Gitmo was closed...
Quote from: guido911 on March 07, 2011, 02:39:34 PM
Military tribunals at Gitmo set to resume.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/07/obama-resume-military-trials-guantanamo-source-says/
I thought Gitmo was closed...
No, remember? We don't want the terrorists in our house.
Quote from: Townsend on March 07, 2011, 02:48:54 PM
No, remember? We don't want the alleged terrorists in our house.
Fixed that. Yes I added "alleged". That way we can avoid you wetting yourself. :o
Quote from: guido911 on March 07, 2011, 08:06:16 PM
Fixed that. Yes I added "alleged". That way we can avoid you wetting yourself. :o
Good for you to keep trying. Good for you.
KSM getting a military commission trial at Gitmo.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20050405-503544.html?tag=breakingnews
Too bad that all is left available is a military tribunal. Much less likely to obtain a death penalty that way.
But then to bring them to New York, where a civilian court COULD impose a death penalty - well that would be just too much to endure, wouldn't it. Too bad a law was passed last year that outlawed it.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 05, 2011, 12:13:08 PM
Too bad that all is left available is a military tribunal. Much less likely to obtain a death penalty that way.
But then to bring them to New York, where a civilian court COULD impose a death penalty - well that would be just too much to endure, wouldn't it. Too bad a law was passed last year that outlawed it.
Why? So we could quintuple (or more) the annual cost of his incarceration while that jackass would continue to get free appeals for 15 years? The death penalty is a rip-off for taxpayers. Make the SOB suffer in a cell the rest of his life.
But then he is DEAD. Problem permanently and totally solved. Forever.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 05, 2011, 12:39:02 PM
But then he is DEAD. Problem permanently and totally solved. Forever.
No not dead, just martyred and deified. Then comes the justification for many other Muslims to kill in his name.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 05, 2011, 12:41:23 PM
No not dead, just martyred and deified. Then comes the justification for many other Muslims to kill in his name.
Just don't burn his reading material and your safe. ;)
Quote from: Gaspar on April 05, 2011, 01:02:53 PM
Just don't burn his reading material and your safe. ;)
Or urinate on it or tear out a few pages and wipe your donkey with it.