fort hood

[davenorthup]

Originally Posted by frenchie

Yes & No.

He wrote a note to the judge, saying he & his co-defendants wanted to withdraw all defense motions, plead guilty, and be executed.

I guess if someone would prefer to plead guilty - I will perceive them as guilty. This is all besides the point. It is asinine to think that Holder's and Obama's comments have caused harm; or will cause harm... History does not bear that claim out.

Originally Posted by frenchie

Off-topic - I find the juxtaposition of this:


funny as sh*t.

I was relying on memory and figured I should point that out instead of making a firm factual statement. I did hear that claim on a news program and did not take the time to seek out the exact link.

The difference was I was qualifying a 'fact' and not regurgitating a talking point opinion.

Originally Posted by frenchie

That particular talking point isn't entirely thin air. It is reported that people who were disturbed by his seeming empathy for suicide bombers, did not file formal complaints because they were afraid of being labelled racist / prejudiced (I think I heard).

Hmm - I thought the army was the conservatives territory??? :) I also did not know that the liberals in world are the only ones that are "PC" or conscious of history. More wild stereotypes??

Attempts by people to make this event (place blame) on the opposing political party is asinine and childish. I know that is not your intention; but it is the intention of some.

[philthegreek]

This guy flew under the radar during THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION!, no one here is blaming the Republicans for this, just like no one here should be placing blame on the Democrats. Everybody F#$%^ked up in this chain. Lets just hope the next time a soldier, any soldier, sends and receives emails from Queda operative/sympathizer, the right people will get off their arses and react. Also the fact that this guy repeatedly tried to "get out" should have thrown up fireworks.

phil

[frenchie]

Originally Posted by davenorthup

I guess if someone would prefer to plead guilty - I will perceive them as guilty. This is all besides the point. It is asinine to think that Holder's and Obama's comments have caused harm; or will cause harm... History does not bear that claim out.

Agree, and wasn't argueing with you. Just offering another reason why they might have decided to try KSM et al in federal court.

I was relying on memory and figured I should point that out instead of making a firm factual statement. I did hear that claim on a news program and did not take the time to seek out the exact link.

The difference was I was qualifying a 'fact' and not regurgitating a talking point opinion.

It was still funny...

And you didn't address Kent's point about the ethical dillemna Holder's comment poses - we're trying KSM in Federal Court to demonstrate that we are a nation of laws, with a just system - but if acquitted, we're going to keep him locked up anyways. While that may be true, saying it publicly undermines the supposed point of the exercise, doesn't it?

I also did not know that the liberals in world are the only ones that are "PC" or conscious of history. More wild stereotypes??

I don't think it's a stereotype to blame PC on liberals, as opposed to conservatives. I don't think it's even an overgeneralization. Antidiscrimination policy is a liberal product, as clearly as say, school prayer is a conservative issue.

Attempts by people to make this event (place blame) on the opposing political party is asinine and childish. I know that is not your intention; but it is the intention of some.

Agree 100%. I don't think it's Kent's intention, either, thouogh.

[Lavrans]

Originally Posted by frenchie

And you didn't address Kent's point about the ethical dillemna Holder's comment poses - we're trying KSM in Federal Court to demonstrate that we are a nation of laws, with a just system - but if acquitted, we're going to keep him locked up anyways. While that may be true, saying it publicly undermines the supposed point of the exercise, doesn't it?

So what? That already happens as it is, essentially. 12 year old boys who will have to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives for stunts that would have gotten a spanking 30 years ago. Police can murder a person under the guise that they were "scared for my life". Our laws are, and have been, unevenly applied, unequally punished, spurious and vindictive.

Thinking that it will cause average Americans even a 5 minute pang of conscience to try them, them keep them locked up even if they are found innocent is naive. If they're found guilty America wouldn't be affected in the slightest if they were still carted immediately off to the gallows and publicly hanged. So long as what we do affects only a small number of people who are distinct from the general population, anything can be done, and it willl in no way "undermine" how our public thinks about our "nation of laws".

[philthegreek]

Lav, I don't think Frenchie is talking about the benefit of our own citizens as much about the perception abroad. The rest of the world already views our judicial system as a joke. I think what he's saying is that these sort of statements just hammer home that perception. The rest of the world already has seen the likes of the OJ trial, the Plamme situation, and other visible cases. I mean, come on, a homeless man caught with 6 grams of coke get put away for life while a rich talk show host can get caught falsifying prescriptions and obtaining large quantities of the narcotic OxyContin goes on to a very lucrative and continuing "career". The fact that Holder expressed the sentiment he did, I think, was just a poor choice of words at the wrong time. Just more hoof-in-mouth disease. Remember when bush said quite emphatically that anyone in his employ found to have a connection with the Plamme issue would be axed, no if's, ands, or buts.? That's all I think Frenchie was alluding to.

phil

[MarkMc]

I don't think it's a stereotype to blame PC on liberals, as opposed to conservatives. I don't think it's even an overgeneralization. Antidiscrimination policy is a liberal product, as clearly as say, school prayer is a conservative issue.

Or a conservative by-product. "PC" is just another form of cheap political labeling aimed generally as a derogatory indictment against a far too often, too broad a group, much the same as many of todays self anointed conservatives are anything but, more closely akin to progressive reactionaries, yet with their own form of PC speak.

[Kent Brobeck]

Originally Posted by davenorthup

Kent - this is Obama's complete quote, where he qualified his statement immediately. What is the problem with it?



Besides - KSM already said he was guilty. Is it really so bad?????

Besides - Nixon said Manson was guilty and he did not walk and live to kill every person in the world. Neither will KSM; just another right wing talking point when they have nothing of consequence to say.

Heck - even Bush said bin ladin was guilty; guess that trial is shot as well..

Do you really think these things through or just repeat what is heard elsewhere?

Dave, I saw the interview with Obama. The only reason he pulled back on his statement was because the reporter took him to task. If you where on trial for murder would you want the President saying "Dave will be found guilty and put to death" before you went on trial??? It taints the jury pool Dave. Have you ever heard of a gag order put in place by the presiding judge? Why do they do that Dave? So the jury pool doesn't get tainted Dave.

Yes it must be Bush's fault right Dave. When Obama acts like an idiot it's Bush's fault right? Osama Bin Laden took responsibility for 911. What will happen when we catch Bin Laden. He will get a lawyer and read his rights? No he wouldn't have any important info that the military could use.

If KSM has already plead guilty why are we putting him on trial? Try and answer that with out Blaming Bush.

Finally, where do you get off asking me if I think about what I say or write. Seriously, how fricken arrogant and condescending are you? Dave the next time I want to make a statement here I'll PM you and ask you what I should say, because you are so smart. What would I do with out you. Ya that's right, I'll be stupid too after taking to you.

[Dick Seibert]

Originally Posted by Thomas Sowell

Terrorists are not even entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions, much less the Constitution of the United States. Terrorists have never observed, nor even claimed to have observed, the Geneva Conventions, nor are they among those covered by it.

But over and above the utter inconsistency of what is being done is the utter recklessness it represents. The last time an attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a matter of domestic criminal justice was after a bomb was exploded there in 1993.

Under the rules of American criminal law, the prosecution had to turn over all sorts of information to the defense — information that told the al-Qaida international terrorist network what we knew about them and how we knew it.

This was nothing more and nothing less than giving away military secrets to an enemy in wartime — something for which people have been executed, as they should have been. Secrecy in warfare is a matter of life and death. Lives were risked and lost during World War II to prevent Nazi Germany from discovering that Britain had broken its supposedly unbreakable Enigma code and could read their military plans that were being radioed in that code.

In the wake of the obscenity of a trial of terrorists in federal court for an act of war — and the worldwide propaganda platform it will give them — it may seem to be a small thing that Obama has been photographed yet again bowing deeply to a foreign ruler. But how large or small an act it is depends on its actual consequences, not on whether the politically correct intelligentsia think it is no big deal.

As a private citizen, Obama has a right to make as big a fool of himself as he wants. But, as president, his actions not only denigrate a nation that other nations rely on for survival, but raise questions about how reliable our judgment and resolve are — which in turn raises questions about whether those nations will consider themselves better off to make the best deal they can with our enemies. ¹

¹ http://www.contracostatimes.com/sear...costatimes.com

[Kent Brobeck]

Originally Posted by davenorthup

The difference was I was qualifying a 'fact' and not regurgitating a talking point opinion.

.

Let me get a point across to you. I have never read a list of talking points in my life. I simply do not have the time. I am married and have three children, run a business and am in the precess of building my own home. I regularly work 70 hrs a week and also help my mother-in-law with her house. I catch the news when I have time an read the paper a few days a week. I don't have time to search the net like you do. Posting all of your supposed "facts". If anyone is childish and immature here, it's you.

Clowns like you are part of the problem in our country. No matter what Obama does it's OK right. You don't have the guts to say he made a mistake. As long as your guy is in office every thing is great right? I voted for GW Bush and apposed many of his decisions with passion. Something I doubt you know much about. The trouble you have with Steve Johnson is at least 50% on you.

[davenorthup]

Kent - A little testy are we? I was not aiming to insult you in any way.

Here is the deal regarding this specific issue. Obama made a statement - the right gets up in arms. Bush made a very similar statement many times over the last 7 years and not a peep. The statements were QUITE similar.

That is my point - the hypocrisy. IMO the right takes almost every pop shot they can at Obama (some deserved and some not). The irony is that they usually are quite hypocritical in their attacks; just like this case.

That is not blaming Bush for anything - that is me pointing out some basic hypocrisies that exist. And yes it is a 2 way street.

As for me, I have many beefs with Obama, most of the stuff written here is idiotic attacks on him so I may defend that; more likely I show the often evident hypocripsy in the rights arguement. I call most of it fluff. There are some very valid reasons to criticize Obama, they rarely are brought up here by the resident right wing guys however.

Personally, I do not see much depth in a lot of your arguements - likely b/c you are a busy guy and do not get the chance to elaborate often. Most of what I read is seemingly regurgitation of AM radio talk shows... That is my impression - I could be wrong.

Back to the topic at hand - if you could explain the difference between Bush's statement of bin ladin's guilt to Obama's statement - I am all ears. I have not heard a credible distinction made by anyone yet.

I'd be interested in reading the exact transcript of the interview - if you know where to find it.

RE - Steve. He is who he is despite me. Do I make him be a ***** to everyone else? Including you?

[Dick Seibert]

Originally Posted by San Francisco Chronicle

U.S. presidents from both political parties have often been criticized for their attempts at culturally sensitive greetings to high-ranking foreigners.

Former President George W. Bush, a Republican, was mocked for holding Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah's hand, a traditional sign of friendship in the Middle East, as they strolled together in 2005.

In 1994, former Democratic President Bill Clinton was criticized for almost bowing to Akihito. The resulting image, The New York Times wrote, was of "an obsequent president and the emperor of Japan."

Former President Richard Nixon, a Republican, can be seen in a Life magazine photo from 1971 bowing to Akihito's father, Emperor Hirohito, who ruled when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941.

Obama's encounter with Akihito was a stumble because it mixed a bow with a handshake — something not normally done. And it wasn't the first time the president, a Democrat in office less than a year, has been criticized for his greeting of a foreign leader. Critics accused him of genuflecting to Saudi King Abdullah at a summit meeting of the leaders of the top 20 rich and developing nations earlier this year.

The current bow comes during a highly charged political moment in the United States. Conservatives are strongly opposing Obama's policies, especially his plan to overhaul the U.S. health care system, and they have seized on any perceived faux pas by Obama, carrying their message on talk radio and blogs.

An online video posted by the University of Connecticut College Republicans juxtaposed a series of upright handshakes between Akihito and other world leaders with Obama's low bow before the emperor.

Andrew Malcolm, in a blog on the Los Angeles Times Web site, asked, "How low will the new American president go for the world's royalty?"

Obama's bow was compared with photos of former Vice President Dick Cheney giving Akihito a straight-backed handshake and Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who oversaw the post-World War II occupation of Japan, standing with his hands on his hips next to Hirohito.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz0XSgksZW1

What's wrong with these guys? Cheney and MacArthur got it right.

Dave:

You support everything Obama does,right or wrong, you would be more credible if you criticized him when he's wrong and supported him when he is right.

[MarkMc]

Originally Posted by Kent Brobeck

If KSM has already plead guilty why are we putting him on trial? Try and answer that with out Blaming Bush.

That's just the problem though Kent, it can't be done. The process GWB et al set up to deal with the "problem" was motivated by political positioning more than a demand for any sort of real American Justice. The taint on whatever Obama decided to do was already in place, and to borrow a phrase;

All they care about is power they don't care about us. As Americans we have a responsibility to change this

Many see that as what is being done now. Listen to Rep. Gohmert or Kyle, both big supporters of all that homeland security/defense spending, seemingly scared sh1tless from having a trial in the homeland and ready to bend over and cede pursuit of our Way to the actions of terrorists. Have they won? The last President had for most of his time in office party control over both houses of Congress and as CinC couldn't get the job done his way, why would you expect his replacement to keep struggling with the same set of failing processes? Honestly, only an idiot would think that not holding the trial or kangaroo court there would lessen NYC's potential as a target; it's been one once or twice before and sadly will be again regardless of KSM and gang.

Prosecuting them in a rented office in Cuba does little to alter that; the only difference it would make, in theory and by comments of many mostly on the right during Holder's questioning and since, is the self-deluded assuredness of outcome afforded by military tribunal; an assuredness that you are critical of el Presidente for holding too in using our civilian courts.

[MarkMc]

Originally Posted by Dick Seibert

What's wrong with these guys? Cheney and MacArthur got it right.

I don't know about that Dick, seems time for someone to bow out. The war is over. Toyota and Honda won beating us at our own game; a real man can be gracious in defeat.

[Dick Seibert]

So why don't we turn them over to the World Court in the Hague for trial like we did Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milošević?

[davenorthup]

Originally Posted by Dick Seibert

So why don't we turn them over to the World Court in the Hague for trial like we did Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milošević?

I think they will not do that b/c these crimes were committed on American soil. I believe SH was tried in Iraq under an Iraqi judge and system - again that was done to give the process some credibility - just like the reasoning to do this in Federal Court. Bush et al made a good decision in letting SH be tried under Iraqi laws in an open and reasonably transparent manner.

Dick - I have many criticisms RE Obama. Far fewer than I had with Bush; but several for certain. They have come up before but not often.... Most of what comes up here is insignificant right wing chatter IMO.

A bow? Seriously? Sorry that does not keep me up at night.

Trying someone in Federal court - again not a big deal for me. Remember; it was not abig deal for Bush either - 90% were tried in Federal Court under his presidency and only 10% in Military Tribunals. Again - the argument against it seems not to be very credible when it has been done several times already.